Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

PORT OF LONDON BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

SOUTH ESSEX WATERWORKS BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Sub-Office, Acton

Mr. Holland: asked the Postmaster-General what improvements he is effecting to benefit both the staff and the general public in Acton Sub-district Post Office.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): The counter was extended in 1960, but, unfortunately, we cannot improve things further in the present building. For some time we have been trying to obtain suitable accommodation elsewhere for a larger public office, and so to make room for improving the sorting office.

Mr. Holland: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Would she not agree that the bustling, modern community that is Acton and the efficient and hardworking post office team we have there both merit something rather better than the converted poor law institution that the post office now occupies, and would she move with even more urgency to find a new, modern building which would not only be attractive to the public but provide cleaner, lighter, more healthy and convenient surroundings for the staff?

Miss Pike: I appreciate how inefficient and unsatisfactory the present building is, and we are looking with great urgency at the possibility of remedying the situation as soon as possible.

Special Stamp Issues

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the names of the distinguished British heroes and literati whose centenaries he proposes to celebrate by the issues of special postage stamps, and the principle he will apply to the selection of an appropriate design for each of them.

Miss Pike: We have no such proposals in mind.

Mr. Hughes: While acquitting the hon. Lady for that egregious Answer, does the Postmaster-General realise that in refusing to do what other nations who take a pride in their national achievements do he is guilty of a rather shameful inferiority complex with reference to Britain's achievements? Will he reconsider this matter in the light of Britain's great achievements and do as other nations do?

Miss Pike: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that this great nation of ours has many proud achievements, and that one of our great difficulties is that we are so rich in achievements which we could commemorate on stamps that we have to be very careful to look critically at each issue of stamps in any one year. I recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern in this matter. He has asked many Questions in this House and I have had to answer them. I remind


him that I am a little in the position of the lady with
Raving winds around her blowing…
O'er the past too fondly wandering,
On the hopeless future pondering.
when I am trying to find the sort of things to commemorate in this way.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General what commemorative postage stamps he proposes to issue in 1962.

Miss Pike: We have no proposals at present for the issue of any commemorative postage stamps in 1962.

Mr. Hughes: Why is the hon. Lady working to rule in this matter? Does not she think that there would be a magnificent opportunity of recouping some of the losses which the Post Office has sustained in recent weeks, especially in Scotland, if she were bold and imaginative enough—and generous enough—to reconsider the ban on Robert Burns postage stamps in Scotland? This would add considerably to their value. Even if the Minister's likeness appeared on postage stamps on this occasion we would welcome it.

Miss Pike: The House will appreciate that I gave a very full answer before, and I have no intention of going into this matter again.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Telegraph Poles (Purchase)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Postmaster-General what proportion of telegraph poles used by his Department are of home-grown timber; and what is the respective purchase price of home-grown and imported poles.

Miss Pike: For many years the Post Office has purchased all the home-grown timber suitable for conversion to poles that has been offered at prices comparable with those paid for overseas poles. About 10 per cent. of our total needs in the years 1955–61 has been met in this way. All purchases are by competitive tender, and it would be contrary to established practice to disclose the actual prices.

Mr. Brewis: Would not the hon. Lady agree that 10 per cent. is a very small proportion of the total in view of the large acreage of softwood timber at present ready for thinning? Will she consult the Forestry Commission and other timber merchants' associations to see whether the proportion can be increased, and also consider advertising the price at which the Post Office would buy home-grown poles?

Miss Pike: Since before the war we have done everything possible to encourage producers of home-grown timber, and we have given them every assistance in this matter. We are determined to go forward with that, but I remind my hon. Friend that prices are put forward to competitive tender, and in that respect I believe that our people are getting possibly the best bargain and the best opportunities that they can have.

Mr. Manuel: When the hon. Lady talks about comparable prices, can she say whether she is dealing with these poles bought as treated—I mean creosoted—for insertion in the ground, or untreated?

Miss Pike: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer to that question off the cuff, but we have very generous conditions for producers of home-grown poles.

Post Office Engineering Union

Mr. Jeger: asked the Postmaster-General what meetings have taken place with representatives of the Post Office Engineering Union on his initiative in the last twelve months for discussion of the dispute which has led to working to rule.

Mr. Fitch: asked the Postmaster-General what meetings have taken place with representatives of the Post Office Engineering Union on his initiative in the last twelve months for discussion of the dispute which has led to working to rule.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I have twice met the union executive at its request during the last year to discuss this dispute—in June and October, 1961. In addition, there have been several meetings between the union and my officials. We are always very ready to meet the union when it seems likely to serve a good purpose.

Mr. Jeger: Does the Minister realise that in the Answer he has just read out he has evaded the key words of the Question, namely, "on his initiative"? He has explained to the House that the meetings that have been held have taken place on the initiative of the union and not himself. Is this not deplorable in view of the fact that he has had such a long time during which he could consider the differences existing between himself and the Post Office workers? Is not this another example of the complacency that has got him into all this trouble?

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. There has been no complacency on my part. I frequently have informal meetings, at my request, with the leaders of the two main Post Office unions, and when the engineering union has asked to see me to discuss the dispute in which it is now involved I have at once readily agreed to see it.

Mrs. Castle: In view of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made in the debate last night, can he say when he next hopes to see the union on this matter?

Mr. Bevins: The intervention that I made last night referred to the Union of Post Office Workers and not the union that is the subject of this Question.

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Postmaster-General at what date the Post Office Engineering Union submitted to the Post Office the pay claim which led to Civil Service Arbitration Award 408; at what date the union first indicated a desire to proceed to arbitration; at what date the Post Office accepted the principle of arbitration; at what date the terms of reference were formally signed; and at what date the Post Office first indicated to the union that the award of the Tribunal would not be implemented.

Mr. Bevins: The claim was tabled on 8th November, 1960. The union formally expressed to me its wish to proceed to arbitration on 6th July, 1961, though I had suggested it to the union in May last year. The Post Office has at all times accepted the principle of arbitration. Terms of reference were signed on 21st July, 1961. On 11th August, 1961, I told the union that, if the Tribunal's

award were to exceed the 5½ per cent. increase which I had already offered, but which had been refused, I should implement the 5½ per cent. as from 1st January, 1961, but that the excess would be withheld until some future date to be decided by the Government.

Sir L. Plummer: Does not the Postmaster-General recognise that the reply he has given clearly shows that the Post Office accepted the idea of arbitration and signed the terms of reference before the pay pause came into effect? Is this really the way to conduct negotiations? Is this in accordance with the traditional standards of honour between two negotiating bodies? Surely the Minister has done a great disservice to the Post Office Engineering Union by treating it in this way.

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. At his meeting with the National Staff Side on 10th August my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that in all proceedings before the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal during the period of the pause, whether or not terms of reference had already been agreed, the operative date of any award would not be arbitral. To have implemented that award in full—and I should emphasise that the award was not made by the Tribunal until the middle of October—would clearly have been in conflict with Government policy.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Minister aware that many of us are sorely distressed by the attitude he has taken up in this case? It is quite obvious that the terms of reference were agreed on 21st July, that everything was ready to go on with the case, and that it was not until 25th July that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his declaration in this House. Surely there must be some honour left in the Post Office. It was honourable throughout the period when was connected with it. Are we becoming less honourable now than we used to be in the old days?

Mr. Bevins: The position is that I made an initial offer to the union of 4½ per cent., which I later increased to an offer of 5½ per cent. Although that offer has been rejected by the union, I nevertheless feel that the Government ought to honour that 5½ per cent. award, as


a pre-pause commitment. For the rest, any excess payment would clearly have been inconsistent with Government policy.

Engineering Factories and Supplies Whitley Council

Dr. King: asked the Postmaster-General why the joint meeting of the Engineering Factories and Supplies Whitley Council fixed for 23rd January, 1962, did not take place; what subjects would have been discussed at this meeting; when the date of the meeting was fixed; and what date has now been fixed for the postponed meeting.

Mr. Bevins: The meeting was postponed because of heavy pressure on the time of the Director General and senior Post Office officials who would have attended it. The agenda covers a wide range of matters, including many of the most important current developments affecting the Post Office engineering, factories and supplies fields. The date was fixed in October last, and the staff side have been informed that a new date will be suggested as soon as possible.

Dr. King: Is the Postmaster-General aware that this is what would have been one of the regular meetings of the Whitley Council; that it would have been attended not only by representatives of the union in dispute with him, but representatives of other groups not in dispute with him; that the Council would have discussed all kinds of matters besides the issue between him and the one union? Since he has ultimately to meet it to restore good conditions, would not it have been better to keep this going as a non-committal body where he could talk to men involved in the dispute and many who are not?

Mr. Bevins: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. The pay claim of this union would not have been discussed at a meeting of this sort, where there would have been a discussion on a wide range of topics affecting the business of the Post Office and Post Office staffs. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the sole reason for the postponement was pressure of work on the Department and we shall get together as soon as we can.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Are we to assume that this meeting, which was fixed for

this date, was postponed arbitrarily by the Post Office, without agreement with this union? If so, is not that cutting right across the tradition of the whole Whitley working, namely, that these things should be by agreement? Would not it be in the interests of the service as a whole that during a period of great anxiety and difference such as we are now going through, these meetings should be held regularly and that no cause for offence should be given?

Mr. Bevins: No cause for offence was given. Moreover, this was not a meeting between the Post Office and a particular trade union. It was a meeting between the Post Office and the Engineering Whitley Council. As soon as a little of the pressure is lifted from my Department we shall resume these meetings.

Mr. Williams: May I press the right hon. Gentleman to answer the first part of my supplementary question? Was it postponed by agreement and, if not, why not?

Mr. Bevins: It was postponed for the reason which I have already given to the House on two occasions.

Christmas Mail (Southampton)

Dr. King: asked the Postmaster-General what was the total number of letters and parcels dealt with by the post office at Southampton during the Christmas period of 1961.

Miss Pike: it is estimated that about 6·2 million letters, cards and letter packets were posted at Southampton during the period from 13th December, 1961, to 2nd January, 1962. No reliable estimate can be made of the items delivered, nor of the inland parcel traffic handled. Neither is it possible to give a precise figure for the substantial quantity of foreign mail which was dealt with at Southampton over Christmas.

Dr. King: Is the hon. Lady aware that this stupendous task, which is carried out every year, could never be achieved without the utter good will and co-operation of management and men in this great Department, a co-operation to which tribute is paid annually by the Mayor and by the two Members of Parliament who represent Southampton? Will the hon. Lady represent to her right


hon. Friends that this good will is being torn down and jeopardised by the Postmaster-General at the present time and that the right hon. Gentleman should do everything to restore it?

Miss Pike: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not underestimate the value of good will in the Post Office.

Mr. J. Howard: May I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) regarding the good will, and may I ask my hon. Friend whether she can give us the figures for the amount of mail from the United States posted in Southampton for redistribution in Europe annually, or for the Christmas period?

Miss Pike: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman those figures without notice.

Interim Pay Reviews

Mr. Randall: asked the Postmaster-General what interim pay reviews were made by agreement between the Post Office and the Union of Post Office Workers in 1957 in advance of pay research surveys.

Mr. Bevins: One such review, covering overseas telegraph operators, telegraphists, telephonists and motor mail drivers was made in May, 1957.

Mr. Randall: Would not the Postmaster-General agree that there is no objection in principle to interim settlements? Does not he appreciate that in the present situation there may well be grounds for exploring the possibility of bringing the two sides together? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that much work and long negotiations follow the report of the pay research unit survey of which he is speaking? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has already had notice of the delay in relation to pay research units and, in the circumstances, cannot he visualise the possibility of an interim settlement?

Mr. Bevins: I appreciate the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. I think he will agree that the 1957 case is entirely different from the present case. Here we have an instance where the grade affected by this dispute received a 4 per cent. increase in pay on 1st January, 1961. If it be the case that these grades have fallen behind in their

pay, information to that effect will be indicated in the reports of the pay research unit which are about to be received by the union and by the Post Office. I have repeatedly said that once that information is available I shall be prepared to negotiate.

Wages

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Postmaster-General what are the national gross maximum weekly wage rates of cleaners, doorkeepers, liftmen and handymen at wireless stations under his control.

Miss Pike: £8 16s. a week. The rates in outer and inner London are greater by 10s. and £1, respectively. This is the same as is paid to non-industrial male cleaners in the Civil Service generally.

Mr. Wainwright: Does not the hon. Lady think that those wages are ridiculously low? In view of the fact that the wage pause is preventing an immediate increase in the wages of these people, would she consider, with her right hon. Friend, contacting the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister by radio to make certain that the wages pause and the conditions attached to it are removed so that negotiations and wages can take place?

Miss Pike: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that we await the Pay Research Unit surveys. In the last survey in 1957 we found that the cleaners were getting a higher rate than was general in the country. Since then there have been two increases, one in 1958 and one in January, 1961. We are anxious to make certain that they have the just treatment which we all want.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is not this the core of the whole dispute which is taking place now? How can the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend face the fact that there are men and women in the Post Office Service receiving amounts in wages which make it difficult for them to exist under present conditions? Is not it about time that something was done and the Postmaster-General accepted his responsibility towards people paid so little, especially having regard to the comparisons with similar grades in industry?

Miss Pike: If that situation is such, it will be seen in the Pay Research Unit's reports, which are coming out very shortly.

Mr. Randall: asked the Postmaster-General, in determining that the increasingly higher rates of pay in manufacturing and other industries should not be a factor affecting the average wages of workers in his Department, what consideration he gave to the effect of this decision on the recruiting and retaining of staff.

Mr. Bevins: The rates of pay outside the Post Office that I ought to take into account for the purpose of fair comparisons will soon become apparent as we have the Civil Service Pay Research Units surveys.
The union has compared increases in the weekly wage rates of postmen with increases in hourly earnings in manufacturing industry. That I think is wrong. As a matter of fact, the increase in hourly rates of pay for postmen since April, 1956, ranges from 25 per cent. to 34 per cent. according to locality, while the corresponding figure for men in manufacturing industry is 22½ per cent.
There is no evidence that the recruitment or the retention of staff is affected by comparative rates of pay. Last year recruitment was far in excess of wastage.

Mr. Randall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I do not have to confirm with him the dissatisfaction felt about recruitment? Has he seen the speech made by the Assistant Postmaster-General in Leicester last November in which the hon. Lady said that:
Outside workers were receiving very high wages. The best "—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Verbatim quotation is out of order in a question.

Mr. Randall: The hon. Lady referred to the good conditions and best possible wages which were a problem for the Post Office in getting recruitment.

Mr. Bevins: I can only reply that during 1961 the number of full-time telephonists increased by over 5,000 and that of full-time postmen by over 3.000. That hardly indicates that the Post Office is being unfair to its staff.

Mr. Randall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my hand thirteen large cities and small towns in this country? [Laughter.] I apologise. I have statistics relating to thirteen large towns and cities where there are problems in regard to recruitment—Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leicester—all over the country.

Mr. Bevins: That may well be true, but that is a problem not merely for the Post Office but for every industrial organisation throughout the country.

Union of Post Office Workers

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Postmaster-General whether he intends to invite the Union of Post Office Workers to meet him at an early date in order to explore the possibilities of resolving the present dispute around the conference table.

Mr. Bevins: I am ready to meet the union at any time, provided it is on a basis that offers some acceptable prospect of resolving the dispute, and that I am not expected to negotiate while the work-to-rule continues. Unfortunately, the response I have had from the union to my suggestions so far has not satisfied these conditions.

Mr. Williams: It seems rather strange that anyone should say in this House that there is anything wrong with working to rules which the Post Office itself has laid down. Apart altogether from that, is it not strange that the Postmaster-General does not take advantage of every opportunity that is presented to him to try to break this deadlock and impasse and try to get together round the table with him men and women who have shown the utmost good will for many years, of which he is fully cognisant? Is it not about time that he himself went some way to meet these people? Is it not the fact that the Union of Post Office Workers, in particular, has already informed the right hon. Gentleman that if he is prepared to have free negotiations and discussions with the union it can lift the working to rule, if that is desired, within 24 hours?

Mr. Bevins: In reply to the first part of that question, I think the hon. Member ought to ask himself what the purpose of the work-to-rule campaign is.


In regard to the second part of the question, I assure him and the whole House that I am constantly seeking means by which normal relations can be restored between the union and the Post Office, but so far I have not had a very helpful response from the union. I have not by any means abandoned hope, but what I cannot do is to negotiate while work to rule continues, or on the basis of conditions imposed upon me.

Mr. Williams: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of a great service, that he should invite the executive council and officers of the union to meet him to see if they can find ways and means by which they can enter discussions? I have already told him my interpretation of what they have told him. Will he now try to take the initiative for the first time in this matter?

Mr. Bevins: I have on several occasions taken the initiative, but frankly, I do not think that exchanges at Question Time—especially at this point in time—are helpful to the resolution of this dispute.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Southend

Mr. Channon: asked the Postmaster-General what is the average waiting time for a telephone in the Southend-an-Sea telephone area.

Miss Pike: The composition of the waiting list of applications held up because of shortage of plant is not constant, and we are sorry, therefore, that a reliable average waiting time cannot be quoted. When plant and equipment are available, service is usually given in about four weeks.

Mr. Channon: Can my hon. Friend say how that compares with other areas of the country, and can she give any indication whether or not telephones promised a very long time ago are in fact to be delivered reasonably accurately as originally forecast?

Miss Pike: The situation is that in the Southend area communications are going ahead very rapidly. Indeed, the business is extending more rapidly than in the rest of the country. We are doing our best to make accurate forecasts when we

shall be able to provide services for everybody, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are keeping this situation very closely under review.

Mr. F. Harris: Surely the hon. Lady is not trying to provide telephone services more quickly in Southend than in Croydon?

Waiting Lists

Mr. Channon: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give details of the special attention he is giving to those telephone areas in Great Britain and Northern Ireland with waiting lists of more than 2·5 per cent. of the total number of subscribers in the area; and how effective this has been in reducing waiting lists.

Miss Pike: In drawing up the telephone development programme allowed by the resources available to us, the capital needs of these areas have been kept very much in mind. As a result, the number of telephone subscribers in these areas has been increased during the five years ended 31st December, 1961, by 23 per cent. in the lowest case to 41 per cent. in the highest, compared with 17 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole. In the same period the waiting list in these areas has dropped from 6·3 per cent. to 3·5 per cent., and 218,000 telephones have been provided. Future progress must depend upon demand and the resources available to us.

Mr. Channon: is the hon. Lady aware that I should like to study her figures closely before commenting on them? Can she tell me how many telephone areas there are in this category, and whether their number has been significantly reduced?

Miss Pike: I should like further notice of that question. I am sure that when my hon. Friend has studied the figures he will realise that he is getting a very good share of the progress that we are making.

Mr. Mason: Can the hon. Lady inform the House to what extent they have succeeded in pressing down demand because of increased telephone tariffs?

Miss Pike: Demand is still very good.

Mr. Manuel: In connection with the areas mentioned, can the hon. Lady say how much delay is occurring because of the lack of provision of main cables in reception areas with the result that telephones cannot be linked up because of lack of power?

Miss Pike: It is difficult to give a precise answer to that question because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, where development is going forward quickly there is a shortage of main cables, and this holds up the situation considerably.

Telephone Instruments (Supply)

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Postmaster-General how many customers requesting telephones are unable to get installation because of shortage of telephone instruments.

Miss Pike: Very few, as telephone instruments are generally in good supply. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind and will let us have details, my right hon. Friend will be happy to make inquiry.

Mr. Channon: Can my hon. Friend say whether the same consideration applies to all types of telephone instrument, including automatic exchanges?

Miss Pike: Automatic exchange equipment comes into a different category, and some of it is in short supply. But we are urgently looking into all these matters.

J. Ambler &amp; Co., Peterlee

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Postmaster-General what measures he proposes to take to correct the defects in telephonic communication reported to his Department by the firm of J. Ambler & Co. of Peterlee, Co. Durham.

Miss Pike: Officials have been in touch with the firm in recent weeks, and my right hon. Friend had hoped that the provision of more trunk circuits in November and December would have improved the position. We are very sorry, however, that the firm is still having trouble. My right hon. Friend has arranged for this to be investigated further, and the telephone manager personally is to be visiting the firm this week. My right hon. Friend will write

to the right hon. Gentleman as soon as these further inquiries are completed.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Lady aware that I am grateful both to her and to her right hon. Friend for what they have done in this connection? I have been compelled to put this Question on the Order Paper because the firm concerned has informed me that it is still having trouble, which is causing a hold-up in its trade. It is an important firm, and it is very desirable that there should be no impediment to the transactions which it undertakes.

Miss Pike: We will stop at nothing to put this situation right. The work which was done yesterday should have considerably eased this firm's position.

Emergency Calls

Mr. John Hall: asked the Postmaster-General what arrangements can be made to enable a subscriber on an automatic exchange, which depends on a manual exchange for non-local calls, to make an emergency call.

Miss Pike: Subscribers on many of these exchanges can dial 999. But there are other exchanges where it is not possible to give this service, and subscribers have to dial O to get an operator who then gives priority to emergency calls. The number of such cases is steadily decreasing as manual exchanges become automatic.

Mr. Hall: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in my constituency there are a number of exchanges which depend on the manual exchange at High Wycombe and that it is by no means a rare experience to have to wait between 10 and 20 minutes for an answer from the operator? In the case of emergency calls this is far too long. Can something be done to help?

Miss Pike: We recognise that the service at High Wycombe is not all that we would wish. We are making plans to provide more positions so that the calls may be dealt with more quickly. High Wycombe will become automatic early in 1966 and until then we shall do everything we can.

Mr. Hall: Did I hear my hon. Friend aright? Did I hear her say that the High Wycombe exchange would become


automatic in 1966. Is not this deplorable? Cannot she hasten it?

Miss Pike: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are many manual exchanges in the High Wycombe area. It will become fully automatic by 1966. If we can do better, we certainly will do.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that this problem is not confined to High Wycombe but exists all over the country, and that at a time when there is a power cut, or something exceptional, ordinary subscribers cannot get through to the exchanges at all because they are blocked with emergency calls? Is she aware that that presents a very real problem?

Miss Pike: I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that the capital investment in telephones is higher than ever before. We are at present pressing on with plans for a fully automatic telephone system in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Advertisements

Mr. Darling: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the amount of time given to advertisements between 7.30 p.m. and 10.25 p.m. on Sunday, 12th November, 1961, in the Independent Television Authority programme devoted to the Royal Variety Show was so great as to detract from the value of the programme; and, in view of this, if he will consult the Independent Television Authority under Section 4 of the Television Act, 1954, with a view to making amendments to Schedule 2 of the Act, limiting the amount of advertisements that is permissible on Sunday evenings.

Mr. Bevins: Under the Television Act it is the duty of the I.T.A. to see that the amount of time given to advertising is not such as to detract from the value of the programmes as a medium of entertainment, instruction and information. The Authority tells me that the amount of time given to advertising during the television programme in question did not exceed the maximum allowed by them. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir".

Mr. Darling: Is the Postmaster-General aware that there were twenty-one minutes advertising in this programme, which must have brought in about £150,000, and that although the artistes gave their services free for this so-called charity show only about £20,000 was handed over? Does not he think it wrong in principle for vast profits to be made by private interests out of charities of this kind?

Mr. Bevins: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quite accurate. My information is that there were eighteen minutes of advertising during the course of this programme, and that in all respects the advertising was within the Authority's rules. For example, there were six minutes of advertising in the two hours 8 o'clock to 9 o'clock and 9 o'clock to 10 o'clock. This is a minute less than the maximum allowed of seven minutes per hour. In regard to the second part of the question, my information is that in addition to the heavy production costs which were incurred in putting on this show, the programme company gave £12,000 to the Variety Artistes' Benevolent Fund, and that all in all this was less profitable as a Sunday evening show than is normally the case.

Mr. Darling: While the sponsoring company, A.T.V., may not have made anything out of it, is he aware that the other network companies must have made at least £60,000 to £70,000? Should not this excessive profit also be handed over to the charity?

Mr. Bevins: I do not think that that question arises out of the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Mayhew: Would not it be in the interests of programme companies to try to improve their image a little by being less mercenary?

Mr. Bevins: That may be true, and it may well be that Sir Harry Pilkington's Committee will have something to say about that.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Postmaster-General if he will have consultations with the Independent Television Authority with a view to making regulations amending Schedule 2 of the Television Act, 1954, imposing restrictions on the advertising of tobacco and cigarettes.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consult the Independent Television Authority with a view to amending the rules as to advertisements in order to restrict tobacco advertising in commercial television programmes.

Mr. Bevins: The answer is, "No", Sir.

Mr. Allaun: But since a connection between cigarettes and lung cancer has now been proved, would not the Minister consider two alternatives, either extending the present ban on such advertisements during children's hours, until 9 o'clock, even though children may still be watching, or, preferably, banning these advertisements altogether on television, particularly since they are deliberately being aimed at young people, with all kinds of romantic associations?

Mr. Bevins: I well understand the point of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I think it is fair to say that most people in this country are well aware of the risks involved in heavy smoking. The decision whether to smoke is really a matter of personal choice. Perhaps I might add that the I.T.A. bans the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco during children's programmes, but I think that it would be a rather extraordinary step to go further and ban such advertising during normal peak hours. If one were to do that on television, why not through other media of advertising?

Mr. Lipton: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the distillers, by praiseworthy arrangement, do not advertise their wares on commercial television, and that that is done without any apparent detriment to their prosperity? Why cannot the Postmaster-General seek to bring about a similar arrangement on the part of cigarette manufacturers? Surely if the Ministry of Health is trying to encourage local authorities to advertise the dangers of excessive cigarette smoking, we ought to co-operate with it to that extent?

Mr. Bevins: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". As regards the second, I do not think that at any time my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has represented that this sort of advertising should be banned on television.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Is the Minister aware that he has left us in some confusion following the remarks in the House of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who on a number of occasions has said that he is looking into the possibility of banning tobacco advertising on television? Will the Postmaster-General consult his hon. Friend and came to a more satisfactory conclusion?

Mr. Bevins: I have read in full what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said. He did not commit me or the Government to imposing a ban of this kind.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to come half-way to meet us? I think the House will agree that it is the responsibility of the Government and others to see what they can do to minimise the effect of smoking on young people. Cannot he do something between the hours of five and seven o'clock when it is not unreasonable for some of these young people to be watching television? Will he consider that aspect of it?

Mr. Bevins: I would be willing to look at this aspect of it. I realise that strong views are held on this subject, but at the moment I am not convinced that the case for complete prohibition has been made out.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Postmaster-General what consultations he has had with the Independent Television Authority under Section 4 (4) of the Television Act, 1954, with a view to reducing the maximum amount of advertising permitted in any hour from seven minutes to six or less.

Mr. Bevins: None, Sir.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that a recent opinion survey has confirmed—if confirmation was necessary—that the great majority of viewers are sick to death of these incessant commercials? Is he aware that for several years the Government and the Authority imposed no maximum at all on the programme companies at peak hours? The present maximum of seven minutes is far too much. Will the Minister now cease sheltering behind the Pilkington Committee and assert himself on behalf


of the viewers and the intentions of the Act and not on behalf of the commercial interests involved?

Mr. Bevins: I am not sheltering behind the Pilkington Committee. Indeed, I hope shortly to march forward with it. Under an I.T.A. rule there is a limit of six minutes spot advertising, averaged over the day, and the maximum amount in any hour has been progressively brought down from eight minutes in 1959 to seven and a half minutes in September, 1960, and seven minutes in December, 1960. That is reasonable, although there must clearly be some flexibility according to the nature and type of programme.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister in favour of all this rubbish which is advertised on television programmes? Surely, as a civilised person, he can answer "Yes" or "No".

Mr. Bevins: That is not a matter for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS (CONSTITUENCY CASES)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister what instructions he has given to Ministers regarding the way in which constituency cases brought to their attention by Members of Parliament should be dealt with.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): None, Sir, other than those of which the House was informed on 30th July, 1958.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Prime Minister will be aware that I was asked to refer to him a statement made by the President of the Torquay Conservative Association which said that Ministers of the present Government dealt differently with constituency cases referred to them by members of his own party and more favourably than with cases referred by members of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Would he be good enough to clear up this matter?

The Prime Minister: If the observations were correctly reported, they were certainly not happily phrased. I think it is the experience of this House that Ministers, whichever Government are in power, do their best to treat all cases equally and to serve all hon. Members they deal with.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (PURCHASE OF ARMS)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister what representations he made to Dr. Adenauer regarding an increase by Germany of arms purchases from Great Britain.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister whether, during his recent conversations with Dr. Adenauer, he discussed the matter of an increased German contribution towards the costs of the British Army of the Rhine.

The Prime Minister: I would refer to my reply on 25th January to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin).

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that it has been widely reported, both here and in Germany, that there was discussion between him and Dr. Adenauer about buying more arms from this country, that he went to Germany as a sort of super commercial traveller to sell armaments? Can he tell us what Germany is likely to send to this country if we send Germany more armaments?

The Prime Minister: As the House knows, the problem of maintaining our forces overseas imposes a very heavy exchange burden upon us. If this can be met by the Germans buying arms from British sources it will certainly be a great relief towards the exchange problem.

Mr. Lipton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman, however, find it rather sickening that for such a long time now British Ministers, including himself, have had to go in relays on these bootlicking expeditions in relation to their opposite numbers in Germany for the purpose of trying to extort a little charity to enable us to meet the financial commitments arising from keeping British troops in Germany? Would it not be much simpler to bring British troops back from Germany and thus solve this very serious balance of payments problem?

The Prime Minister: No. I think there would be disadvantages in that course in the strength of the whole N.A.T.O. Alliance.

Mr. H. Wilson: Does not the Prime Minister think this a very serious matter,


that the failings of our export record are such that this country has to balance its overseas payments by shipment of arms abroad, not only to Germany but to many other countries? Does he not feel that it is extremely humiliating for Ministers to go cap in hand touting for arms orders every time they go abroad?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member fails to appreciate the very heavy balance of payments problem placed upon us by keeping large numbers of troops as part of the N.A.T.O. Alliance overseas. [An HON. MEMBER: "Bring them home."] If it can be met by the Germans placing orders for arms here, that would be a helpful solution of part of that problem.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not a fact that West Germany is still spending a very much smaller proportion of its national income on defence than is the United Kingdom? Is not this the real problem? Is it not rather unsatisfactory that we should try to get out of our difficulties by shipping arms to Germany when what is really wanted is a proper arrangement by which the proportion spent on defence by members of N.A.T.O. is much closer than it is today?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is only a proportion of the money spent on defence. What falls so heavily on us is the large proportion of expenditure which is overseas expenditure.

Mr. Gaitskell: Since, as the Prime Minister has not denied, West Germany is spending a much smaller proportion of her income upon defence than we are, could we not invite a contribution to the support of N.A.T.O. other than through the form of purchasing arms from us?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a budgetary problem but a balance of payments problem. This is probably one of the easiest methods of meeting it, at any rate for the time being.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend recall that immediately after the war the Labour Government set the fashion by selling new type jet engines to Soviet Russia to get an income?

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not obvious to the Prime Minister that our troops are in Germany as much for the protection of the Germans as for the people of this country? If we cannot afford to spend £70 million a year on maintaining our troops in Germany and if the Germans will not pay their fair share, is it not about time that we brought our troops back?

The Prime Minister: It is the fact of it being overseas expenditure, added to the very heavy overseas expenditure which we make in many parts of the world. Therefore, it is not simply a proportion of the national income. What lies heavily upon us is the burden that we carry in many parts of the world. It is to try to meet that burden that these discussions have been instituted.

Mr. Rankin: Does the Prime Minister think that selling arms to Germany will help to promote a disarmament agreement?

The Prime Minister: That is quite another matter. These arms are going to be procured by the Germans, whether they buy them from the Americans or manufacture them themselves. It is to our advantage if we can help to meet our balance of payments by supplying them from our own resources.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not obvious that, if the Germans were to put into the N.A.T.O. pool the kind of expenditure which they are supposed to be going to spend on arms from us now, that would help our balance of payments and bring up the proportion spent on defence by Germany to a figure somewhat nearer to what we spend?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the proportion at present spent by Germany is less, but not very much less, and it is growing all the time as the German Army is growing. What the right hon. Gentleman calls the N.A.T.O. pool is exactly the problem. The whole problem is the balance of payments aspect, and that problem has not yet been resolved.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' REMUNERATION (REVIEW BODY)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Prime Minister if he is now able to state the composition of the review body recommended by the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration.

The Prime Minister: Not yet, but I hope to be able to do so soon.

Mr. Pavitt: Whilst deploring the rather dilatory way in which this is being dealt with, is there any point now in going ahead with this review of doctors' pay in view of the way in which the Government have interfered with the machinery concerned with the pay of lower-paid workers? If so, can we take it for granted that as the average medical practitioner receives £4,000 a year the recommendations of this review body will be of some influence?

The Prime Minister: I think it is right that this body should be appointed. I am very grateful to Lord Kindersley for accepting the chairmanship. I hope soon to be able to announce the names of the other six members.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Jennings: asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to enable a referendum of the electorate to be held on the question of the proposed entry of Great Britain into the Common Market, such referendum to take place after the terms of entry have been announced, and before Parliament finally decides whether or not to enter.

The Prime Minister: As I said in the House on 31st July, when any negotiations are brought to a conclusion then it will be the duty of the Government to recommend to the House what course we should pursue. I cannot go beyond that.

Mr. Jennings: If it was deemed expedient to hold a referendum on Sunday drinking in Wales, why is it not reasonable policy to hold such a referendum in Great Britain on the question of our proposed entry into the Common Market, as such entry means tremendous

and far-reaching problems on economic, political and constitutional grounds?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the analogy of local option is a good one. That has been a long institution in our affairs. Whatever else we do about the European Economic Community, I do not think that we can have a local option about it. I should have thought that the best thing is to see whether and in what form the negotiations come to an end and then decide what it is best to do.

Mr. Jennings: Will my right hon. Friend tell me how local is local?

The Prime Minister: I certainly know my own "local".

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF OLD PEOPLE (REPORT)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister what study he has made of the report on The Economic Circumstances of Old People, by the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge, a copy of which has been sent to him; when he intends to meet the various Ministers concerned, in order to co-ordinate their activities on this matter; and what remedial measures Her Majesty's Government propose to provide.

The Prime Minister: I have seen the Report to which my hon. Friend refers and so have those of my colleagues principally concerned. I have no doubt that they will give it consideration.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the importance of this Report, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that it will not be neglected in the same way as the Report of the Phillips Committee on a somewhat similar subject was neglected over the years? Further, will my right hon. Friend ask his private secretary to let me know when I can table a Question with a view to getting an answer telling me what is to happen?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend can table Questions at any moment. I must point out that this Report, although valuable, is based on 500 cases over the whole country. The investigation took place between July, 1959, and March, 1960, since which date both retirement


pensions and National Assistance have been increased.

Dame Irene Ward: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that that is a very silly, narrow little argument? Is he not aware that the whole country knows that there is a great deal in the Report which requires consideration and action? Will he be a leader and ensure that something is done about it?

The Prime Minister: As the Report has been publicly raised in a Question, I think it is right to point out the very narrow nature of the people inquired into.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Report suggests that very nearly one-third of the persons questioned were on a standard of living below that provided on National Assistance because they did not wish to apply for National Assistance? Will the Ministers concerned give their attention to that aspect of the matter? Is the Prime Minister also aware that even those on National Assistance were said to be on a standard of living very near indeed to the poverty level? Does not this suggest that the time has come for the National Assistance rate to be raised?

The Prime Minister: The National Assistance rate has been raised twice since the period when this investigation was made. With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I am grateful to him for making the point about people not wishing to apply for National Assistance. This matter has often been mentioned from both sides of the House. I think that it is important that people should feel relieved from any unwillingness to apply for National Assistance, which is not the old poor law but the whole nation making its contribution to them. They have no reason to be ashamed of it.

Mr. W. Yates: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a case for combining the offices of the Ministry of Pensions with that of the National Assistance Board so that when a person draws an additional pension he does not have to demean himself and go off to another office in another part of the town.

The Prime Minister: That is a question which has been raised before, I think. It is a much wider question, but I will certainly inquire into it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is not the Prime Minister aware that there is deep concern, first, because a very large number of old people are still very reluctant, because of their pride, to go to the National Assistance Board, and secondly, because there are services other than financial services which they badly need but do not get? Does not this Report, limited though its scope may be, show that there is a need for the Government to undertake a wider survey of the needs of old people?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — "SUNDAY TIMES"

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister if he will extend the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Press to enable them to report on the new policies announced by the Sunday Times.

The Prime Minister: I am not aware that the Sunday Times has announced any new policies that might call for an extension of the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Press.

Mr. Fletcher: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the recently proposed appointment of Lord Snowdon has, to say the least, provoked a certain amount of controversy on constitutional grounds? Does not the Prime Minister think that it might be wise to invite the Royal Commission to express an opinion on the subject?

The Prime Minister: No. If it were true that the appointment has given rise to controversy on constitutional grounds, I do not think that it could possibly be brought within the terms of the Royal Commission, which was appointed, as the House will remember, as a result of one newspaper going out of business and a possibility of monopoly conditions, and so forth. It has no relevance to any constitutional issue.

Mr. Edelman: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the right to work is a fundamental human right and that


it should be denied to no one, not even by chagrined competitors?

The Prime Minister: That is a very robust contribution to this Question.

IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND COURTAULDS (PROPOSED MERGER)

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the merger which I.C.I. has proposed with Courtaulds.
Each of the companies concerned, in respect of the production of man-made fibres, already has a sufficient share of the market to bring it within the terms of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948. Their merger, however achieved, would bring about a combination of exceptional size by the standards of this country. There have been no grounds hitherto for contemplating a reference to the Monopolies Commission of any sector of the production of man-made fibres, and the merits or demerits of a monopoly cannot, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, be fairly judged on grounds of size alone.
It has been the policy of successive Governments in this country to judge monopolies, using the word in the sense of the 1948 Act, by their actual effects in practice, and not to attempt to reach conclusions on the possible effects of any particular monopoly before it has come into existence and there has been experience of its working. The 1948 Act is based on this policy.
Her Majesty's Government have, on consideration, come to the conclusion that the circumstances of the offer which I.C.I. has announced its intention of making to the shareholders of Courtaulds, are not such as to justify them in departing from this well-established policy. They are satisfied that the advantages or disadvantages of a merger of the two companies, however it is achieved, can only be judged by results—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"]—and that there are no grounds for concluding in advance that the effects would be such as to require them to intervene on grounds of injury to the national interest. In reaching this conclusion they

have had in mind the great and increasing competitive power of other countries in this field, and, in addition, the fact that there will be competition from units in this country which, though small in themselves, are subsidiaries of very large foreign companies. They have also had in mind the rights of users, either of primary materials or of finished products, to apply at any time for reductions in the level of the tariff.
If the merger takes place, and if it operates in such a way that it appears to me to be acting against the public interest, then I would immediately make a reference to the Monopolies Commission—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] If, after considering the report of the Monopolies Commission, the Government were to decide that it was necessary for them to intervene, they would ask Parliament for any additional powers that were required. The Government recognise the importance of the problems which surround the general subject of mergers, monopolies and restrictive practices. Certain aspects of this are already being considered by the Committee on Company Law which, I understand, will shortly be submitting its report. I am not going to anticipate the conclusions of Lord Jenkins and his colleagues.
On the wider issues, I had already put in hand a general review of policy in the light of experience gained in the five years since Parliament passed the Restrictive Trade Practices Act in 1956. This is a very large and complex subject and the review will clearly take some time. It will, naturally, have to cover the growth in recent years in the number of mergers and the implications of this development for the future health of the economy.
In response to requests made by several hon. Members, I am arranging for copies of this statement to be available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Jay: Does not that statement, following the repeated changes of mind by the President of the Board Trade, reveal a condition—exceptional even for this Government—of confusion, vaccillation and cowardice over this matter? If the Minister had no more to say to us today than he said before Christmas, why did he promise us a week ago that he would make a new


statement? Can he now tell us what he said to the chairman of I.C.I. and of Courtaulds when he saw them a fortnight ago? If the Government recognise, as the right hon. Gentleman says they do, that it would be within the terms of the Monopolies Commission now, before the merger, to refer to the Commission either of those companies, what are the reasons, which he did not give, for the Government having decided to do nothing at all?

Mr. Erroll: The Government have decided to adhere to their existing policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There have been no repeated changes of mind on my part, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, who has, as usual, been deluded by unnecessary Press speculation. I have made a statement this afternoon because of general public interest in the matter, and to meet the known requests of hon. Members opposite.
I did not meet the chairman of I.C.I. and of Courtaulds a fortnight ago; I met them more recently than that. The talks were confidential and I do not intend to give any indication of what I said to them or they said to me. As to the fact that both companies are already technically monopolies, the supply of the materials concerned has not been referred to the Monopolies Commission because the two companies have not hitherto been acting contrary to the public interest.

Sir H. Butcher: Bearing in mind the many thousands of shareholders there are in I.C.I., did my right hon. Friend have a word with the chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries to satisfy himself about the resources of management existing there, which the company's previous record hardly seems to show in public?

Mr. Erroll: I must make it plain to the House that the talks were primarily for the purpose of obtaining facts and information, and the details must properly remain confidential, as the chairmen agreed with me.

Mr. Grimond: Assuming that the President of the Board of Trade comes to the opinion that the matter should be referred to the Monopolies Commission, does he think that, from experience, the Commission would either act

quickly enough or have sufficient powers to deal with it? Does not the experience with the tobacco companies show that once these things have taken place it is extremely difficult to undo them? Does he not think that it is time that there was provision for consulting the staffs of firms concerned in these takeover bids?
Would the right hon. Gentleman consider referring to the Jenkins' Committee the position of company chairmen making statements in these conditions? As I understand, if one puts out a prospectus one has to be extremely careful what one says in it. Either one or the other of the statements made by Courtaulds' directors must be to a great extent misleading, and might have very serious effects upon employment and upon the behaviour of Courtaulds' shareholders.

Mr. Erroll: The Monopolies Commission has powers only to report and to make recommendations to Her Majesty's Government. It is for the Government to implement those recommendations as they think best. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) had a Question for Oral Answer today on the Imperial Tobacco-Gallahers matter, and I hoped that that Question would be reached. As it has not been reached, I will not comment on that matter until I know whether the right hon. Gentleman will allow the question to be replied to by Written Answer tonight, or whether he wishes it to be deferred to next Tuesday.
With regard to the staff, both companies have good records as employers. The Jenkins Committee is, of course, studying what I might call the technique of mergers and takeovers, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the appearance of the Committee's Report.

Mr. Carr: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's major decision, may I ask him whether he is aware of the concern that mergers of this kind create and, therefore, of the need to have a Monopolies Commission which is both somewhat awe-inspiring in its influence and quicker in its action than the Commission is at present? Will he, therefore, as he says, make the review of policy in this field as urgent as he possibly can?

Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir. I had already initiated this review before the present matter came to the public, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall press on with the review of this complex subject as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Callaghan: To return to the question of Courtaulds and I.C.I., does the President of the Board of Trade remember telling me before Christmas, when I raised the question of public interest, that the public interest was best served by the mergers selling their products as cheaply and efficiently as possible? As both of those criteria are challenged—one by Courtaulds and the other by the users of their fibres—can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what it is in the public interest, to which he has now referred, which leads him to the conclusion that he need not intervene?
Does not all this point to the very simple need for a public inquiry to go into these disputed matters both between users and manufacturers and between the two firms concerned, so that the public interest can be genuinely and independently considered by someone not affected, as the Minister is?

Mr. Erroll: These are matters which relate to the future. No one can tell what the price structure will be in the future, whether or not this merger takes place, and no body of experts, however expert, could be expected to give reliable opinions and recommendations relating to events—whether they be prices or technological changes—which have not yet taken place.

Mr. B. Harrison: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he had any consultations with the Minister of Labour on this matter? Is he aware that Courtaulds has produced four or five new fibres whereas I.C.I. has failed to produce one successful synthetic fibre since the war? Is not this take-over of the dead hand of I.C.I likely to be very serious on the research of Courtaulds?

Mr. Erroll: I am not going to comment on the merits or demerits of that argument because that, also, relates to the future as well as to the past. As regards any suggestion that I.C.I. is a dead hand, one has only to look at that company's record.

Mrs. White: As the right hon. Gentleman has said that we should look at the

record of I.C.I., is he aware that that company's record relating to man-made fibres in the last two years is lamentable, while the record of Courtaulds, by contrast, in the research and development of synthetic fibres, has been exceptionally good? Is he satisfied that it is in the public interest that the whole of the man-made fibres manufacture and research in this country—or most of it—should be put into the hands of I.C.I., which has a record in which the research workers of Courtaulds have no confidence whatever? Will he take the same attitude if I.C.I. goes in for paints and fertilisers? Are we to have a vast monopoly in these products without question by the Government?

Mr. Erroll: Both I.C.I. and Courtaulds are interested in paint manufacture and thus there is no question of them entering this field.
On the wider issue, I think that the hon. Lady should recollect, as came out before Christmas, that discussions between the two firms for some sort of amalgamation or merging of their interests had been in progress for a considerable time. Disagreement arose over the terms and conditions.

Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend look at this matter again? I ask him to do so because Courtaulds' latest factory is in my constituency and I can look at the matter from both the workers' and the consumers' point of view. Is he aware that I.C.I. is charging for caustic soda—one of the basic raw materials-50 per cent. more in the last ten years, while German prices came down by 10 per cent. in the same period? The company is charging 65 per cent. more for chlorine than European prices and recently, for Courtelle—which is the most successful of all the man-made fibres and which is made in my constituency—I.C.I. has been charging double what Courtaulds can now buy it for from other competitors. Is there not a danger in giving I.C.I. a monopoly in supply? Will my right hon. Friend look at this from the national point of view and not from the Stock Exchange point of view?

Mr. Erroll: I said earlier that both companies have good records as employers.
I think that my hon. Friend was taking some of the points he raised from the statement furnished by Courtaulds to all hon. Members. It is perfectly open to I.C.I., if that company wishes, to produce a statement for all hon. Members giving its own side of the story.
Concerning the final part of my hon. Friend's question, when he talked about a danger in the future, there may be a danger and there may not be. The important point is that a public inquiry, even by experts, could not decide authoritatively on events which have not yet taken place.

Mr. M. Foot: Does not the Minister's statement confirm the statement made, roughly in these words, by Mr. Chambers of I.C.I.: that he did not give a fig What was said by the politicians? Does he not think that it is grossly out of conformity with the dignity of this House that we should have to adopt such a grovelling attitude to giant corporations which direct the economic destinies of this country? Why should we not take them into public ownership?

Mr. Erroll: The hon. Gentleman's party proposed to take about 500 companies into public ownership in 1959. The public decisively rejected those proposals at the ensuing General Election.

Mr. Nabarro: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the decision he has reached—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: How many shares does the hon. Member have in I.C.I.?

Mr. Nabarro: Not too many—may I ask my right hon. Friend to recognise that undue Government interference every time there is a proposed amalgamation or lateral or vertical combination in industry designed to improve efficiciency and increase competitive power would have a disastrous consequence on our export trade and make us, in the long run, far less competitive than we are today?

Mr. Erroll: I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said and that is why, after consideration, the Government decided to adhere to their present policy despite the size of the present proposals. The whole question of mergers and amalgamations—whether lateral or vertical—is, nevertheless, forming part of the

review which I had initiated in my Department before this matter became public.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not perfectly obvious that it is exceptionally difficult to break up a merger once it has taken place and that it is very much easier to prevent it taking place should it be against the public interest that it should take place? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that a public inquiry in this case is not necessary in order to clear up the conflicting points of view expressed even in this House today? Why should not the public have all the facts set out before them, with a judgment, so far as it goes, by impartially-minded people—with the Government, certainly, to make the decision in the end? What is there against this? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter so that this merger shall not be allowed to go through until we are satisfied that the interests of the consumers and the workers and the nation generally are properly safeguarded?

Mr. Erroll: We have considered this matter and I have been very much criticised by some of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends for taking a little time in which to do so. We have reached the conclusion, which we intend to sustain, namely, that the changes to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are not facts but probabilities relating to the future and no impartial inquiry could do justice to events which are yet to take place—unless all members of the inquiry were possessed of a remarkable clairvoyant sense.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gaitskell: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I feel that there is some difficulty in discussing this matter by way of question and answer. I will allow one more question to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of his very unsatisfactory replies and the general attitude of the Government to monopoly at present, we shall have no option but to put down a Motion on the subject?

Mr. Nabarro: Send a Whip to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). He will vote with the Opposition.

Mr. S. Silverman: I desire to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely
the refusal of the Government to prevent the imminent creation of a giant monopoly against the public interest by a merger of I.C.I. and Courtaulds.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the refusal of the Government to prevent the imminent creation of a giant monopoly against the public interest by a merger of I.C.I. and Courtaulds.
For a variety of reasons, I cannot think that that falls within the Standing Order. As far as I know, the Government have no power in the present circumstances to prevent such a merger and to give them power would involve legislation which could not be discussed on an Adjournment Motion. Quite apart from that matter, there is the question of the necessity of the House discussing this matter this day on an Adjournment Motion as opposed to a Motion of the kind suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.
I confess that I do not know much about the facts, but we were told that the distribution of documents of invitation in this connection would take something like three weeks. That was a week ago, and I suppose that some period is allowed for acceptance. On the whole, I think it difficult to get it within the Standing Order on the ground of urgency. Accordingly, I cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am sure that the House will be very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for explaining on this occasion why the matter is not within the Standing Order. May I direct your attention to one point?
You said that the Government had no power to prevent it and that for them to obtain powers would require legislation. There are many ways in which a Government can intervene to prevent a damaging and evil thing for the nation without having actual powers to direct

that it shall not take place. For instance, they could easily persuade these people to postpone it and have the public inquiry for which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has asked. This might very well have the result of preventing it without the exercise of powers or legislation.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the force of what the hon. Gentleman says. I should not regard powers of the Government of that kind as permitting me to allow the matter to be discussed upon a Motion for the Adjournment.

Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the Opposition has given notice that he will raise this matter at an early date, presumably on a Supply day—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or whenever it will be raised—are we in order in discussing it further?

Mr. Speaker: We are not going to discuss it any further.

SIERRA LEONE (GIFT OF A MACE)

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: On 19th December, 1961, the House gave leave of absence to a delegation to present a Mace as a gift from this House of Commons to the House of Representatives of Sierra Leone, as directed by Her Majesty the Queen. The delegation comprised the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt), the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and myself. We were accompanied by Mr. Hugh Farmer, an Officer of this House, and I know that we were all most grateful far his help and advice.
Accordingly, on 9th January, the Mace was presented, after speeches had been made by the right hon. Member for Llanelly and myself. The following Resolution was then moved by the Prime Minister, the right hon. Sir Milton Margai, seconded by the Leader of the House, the hon. Paramount Chief Koker, and passed unanimously:
This House accepts with sincere thanks the generous gift of a Mace from the United Kingdom House of Commons to mark Sierra Leone's attainment of Independence in April, 1961, and to serve as a visible symbol of those


ties of goodwill which have existed between this Legislature and the Mother of Parliaments in the United Kingdom and as a constant reminder of those high ideals of Parliamentary government and the democratic way of life in which this Legislature has been nurtured over the years.
I hope that, in accordance with precedent, Mr. Speaker, you will instruct that that Resolution be recorded in the Journal of this House.
It was a unique and memorable occasion and the gift of a Mace, bearing its royal symbols, was made the more appropriate since, only a few weeks before, Her Majesty, as Queen of Sierra Leone, had presided over her Parliament there.
The delegation were the guests for a week of the Government and people of Sierra Leone. I speak for us all when I say how grateful we are for the kindness and hospitality shown to us and for the opportunities we were afforded to see something of that beautiful country and to appreciate the many problems which it faces now and for the future.

We return with a deep affection for this small new nation in the Commonwealth whose ties with us are so close and so historic, confident, also, that there is no other country in Africa where Parliamentary government in the Westminster tradition has a better chance of flourishing.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: In accordance with what I am sure are the wishes of the House, I shall cause the Resolution referred to by the right hon. Gentleman to be recorded in the Journal.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Report [29th January] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Iain Macleod]:—

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 201.

Division No. 48.]
AYES
[3.58 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cary, Sir Robert
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Aitken, W. T.
Channon, H. P. G.
Godber, J. B.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Chataway, Christopher
Goodhart, Philip


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Goodhew, Victor


Arbuthnot, John
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gough, Frederick


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Cleaver, Leonard
Gower, Raymond


Atkins, Humphrey
Coward, Richard
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.


Barber, Anthony
Cooke, Robert
Green, Alan


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper, A. E.
Graham Cooke, R.


Barter, John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gurden, Harold


Batsford, Brian
Cordle, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bell, Ronald
Corfield, F. V.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Costain, A. P.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Berkeley, Humphry
Coulson, Michael
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bidgood, John C.
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Biffen, John
Critchely, Julian
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Biggs-Davison, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Curran, Charles
Hastings, Stephen


Bishop, F. P.
Dance, James
Hay, John


Black, Sir Cyril
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bossom, Clive
de Ferranti, Basil
Hendry, Forbes


Bourne-Arton, A.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Box, Donald
Doughty, Charles
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Boyle, Sir Edward
du Cann, Edward
Hirst, Geoffrey


Braine, Bernard
Duncan, Sir James
Hobson, John


Brewis, John
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hocking, Philip N.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Eden, John
Holland, Philip


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Elliot, Cant. Walter (Carshalton)
Hollingworth, John


Brooman-White, R.
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hopkins, Alan


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Farr, John
Hornby, R. P.


Bryan, Paul
Fell, Anthony
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Buck, Antony
Finlay, Graeme
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Bullard, Denys
Fisher, Nigel
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Forrest, George
Hughes-Young, Michael


Burden, F. A.
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Butler, Rt Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Freeth, Denzil
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Gammans, Lady
Jackson, John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gardner, Edward
James, David


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Gibson-Watt, David
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gilmour, Sir John
Jennings, J. C.




Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Stevens, Geoffrey


Johnson smith, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stodart, J. A.


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Joseph, Sir Keith
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Partridge, E.
Tapsell, Peter


Kirk, Peter
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kitson, Timothy
Peel, John
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Lagden, Godfrey
Percivat, Ian
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Lambton, Viscount
Peyton, John
Temple, John M.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Leburn, Gilmour
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pillkington, Sir Richard
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pitman, Sir James
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lilley, F. J. P.
Pitt, Miss Edith
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Pott, Percivall
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Litchfield, Capt. John
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Prior, J. M. L.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Longbottom, Charles
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Turner, Colin


Longden, Gilbert
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Loveys, Walter H.
Pym, Francis
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ramsden, James
Vane, W. M. F.


MacArthur, Ian
Rawlinson, Peter
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


McLaren, Martin
Redmayne, Rt- Hon. Martin
Vickers, Miss Joan


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Renton, David
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Macleod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Walder, David


McMaster, Stanley R.
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker, Peter


Macmillan, Ht. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Rippon, Geoffrey
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)
Wall, Patrick


Maddan, Martin
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Maginnis, John E.
Robson Brown, Sir William
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Maitland, Sir John
Roots, William
Webster, David


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Marlowe, Anthony
Russell, Ronald
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
St. Clair, M.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Marshall, Douglas
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Wilson, Geoffrey (Trurn)


Marten, Neil
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wise, A. R.


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Seymour, Leslie
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Sharples, Richard
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Shaw, M.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Mawby, Ray
Skeet, T. H. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Woollam, John


Mills, Stratton
Smithers, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Nabarro, Gerald
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher



Neave, Airey
Spearman, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Speir, Rupert
Mr. Chichester-Clark and




Mr. Whitelaw.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ginsburg, David


Ainsley, William
Cronin, John
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crosland, Anthony
Gourlay, Harry


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Darling, George
Greenwood, Anthony


Awbery, Stan
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Grey, Charles


Baird, John
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Beaney, Alan
Deer, George
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Delargy, Hugh
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.


Bence, Cyril
Dempsey, James
Gunter, Ray


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Diamond, John
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Benson, Sir George
Dodds, Norman
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Blackburn, F.
Donnelly, Desmond
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Blyton, William
Driberg, Tom
Harman, William


Boardman, H.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hayman, F. H.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Edelman, Maurice
Healey, Denis


Bowles, Frank
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)


Boyden, James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fernyhough, E.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Finch, Harold
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fitch, Alan
Hilton, A. V.


Butter, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fletcher, Eric
Holman, Percy


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Holt, Arthur


Callaghan, James
Forman, J. C.
Hoy, James H.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Cliffe, Michael
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Collick, Percy
Galpern, Sir Myer
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn )
Hunter, A. E.







Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Moyle, Arthur
Sorensen, R. W.


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Mulley, Frederick
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Janner, Sir Barnett
Neat, Harold
Spriggs, Leslie


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Steele, Thomas


Jeger, George
Noel-Baker, Rt Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oliver, G. H.
Stonehouse, John


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Oram, A. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Owen, Will
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Paget, R. T,
Swain, Thomas


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Panned, Charles (Leeds, WO
Symonds, J. B.


Kelley, Richard
Pargiter, G. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Kenyon, Clifford
Parkin, B. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pavitt, Laurence
Thomson, C. M. (Dundee, E.)


King, Dr. Horace
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thornton, Ernest


Lawson, George
Peart, Frederick
Timmons, John


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pentland, Norman
Wade, Donald


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Prentice, R. E.
Warbey, William


Lipton, Marcus
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Watkins, Tudor


Loughlin, Charles
Probert, Arthur
Weitzman, David


McCann, John
Proctor, W. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


MacColl, James
Randall, Harry
White, Mrs. Eirene


McInnes, James
Rankin, John
Whitlock, William


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Reid, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Reynolds, G. W.
Willey, Frederick


McLeavy, Frank
Rhodes, H.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


MacMillan, Malcolm (western Isles)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Manuel, A. C.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Mapp, Charles
Ross, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mason, Roy
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Woof, Robert


Mayhew, Christopher
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Millan, Bruce
Skeffington, Arthur
Zilliacus, K.


Milne, Edward
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)



Mitchison, G. R.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Monslow, Walter
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Mr. Charles A. Howell and




Mr. Sydney Irving.

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report,

put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.41 (Business Committee):—

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 202

The following is the Report of the Business Committee:

That—

(a) the remaining Proceedings in Committee on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill shall be divided into the parts specified in the second column of the Table set out below;
(b) the three days which under the Order [25th January] are given to the said Proceedings, and portions of those days, shall be allotted in the manner shown in that Table; and
(c) subject to the provisions of the Order [25th January], each part of the Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE


Allotted Day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings




p.m.


First day
Clause 1 so far as not previously disposed of
5.30


Clauses 2 and 3
10.30


Second day
Clauses 4 and 5
5.0


Clauses 6 to 15
10.30


Third day
Clauses 16 to 21
6.0


New Clauses
8.0


Schedules 1 to 3; and new Schedules
10.30

ARMY RESERVE BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Report [29th January] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Iain Macleod]:—

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 203.

Division No. 49.]
AYES
[4.9 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Burden, F. A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Aitken, W. T.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Farr, John


Arbuthnot, John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Fell, Anthony


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Finlay, Graeme


Atkins, Humphrey
Cary, Sir Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Barber, Anthony
Channon, H. P. G.
Forrest, George


Barlow, Sir John
Chataway, Christopher
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)


Barter, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Frater, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Batsford, Brian
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Freeth, Denzil


Bell, Ronald
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Gammans, Lady


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gardner, Edward


Berkeley, Humphry
Cleaver, Leonard
Gibson-Watt, David


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Collard, Richard
Gilmour, Sir John


Bidgood, John C.
Cooke, Robert
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Biffen, John
Cooper, A. E.
Godber, J. B.


Biggs-Davison, John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Goodhart, Philip


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cordle, John
Goodhew, Victor


Bishop, F. P.
Corfield, F. V.
Gough, Frederick


Black, Sir Cyril
Costain, A. P.
Gower, Raymond


Bossom, Clive
Coulson, Michael
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R


Bourne-Arton, A.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Green, Alan


Box, Donald
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Gresham Cooke, R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Critchley, Julian
Gurden, Harold


Boyle, Sir Edward
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Braine, Bernard
Curran, Charles
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Brewis, John
Dance, James
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
de Ferranti, Basil
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Brooman-White, R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Doughty, Charles
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccteef'd)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Drayson, G. B.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bryan, Paul
du Cann, Edward
Hastings, Stephen


Buck, Antony
Duncan, Sir James
Hay, John


Bullard, Denys
Duthie, Sir William
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Eden, John
Hendry, Forbes




Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon Charles (Luton)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Marshall, Douglas
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Hirst, Geoffrey
Marten, Neil
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hobson, John
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Speir, Rupert


Hocking, Philip N.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Holland, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hollingworth, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stodart, J. A.


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Mills, Stratton
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hopkins, Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hornby, R. P.
Nabarro, Gerald
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Neave, Airey
Tapsell, Peter


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'ster, Moss Side)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Temple, John M.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Jackson, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


James, David
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Jennings, J. C.
Partridge, E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Peel, John
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Peyton, John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Turner, Colin


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pitman, Sir James
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pitt, Miss Edith
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kirk, Peter
Pott, Percivall
Vane, W. M. F.


Kitson, Timothy
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Lagden, Godfrey
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Lambton, Viscount
Prior, J. M. L.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Leburn, Gilmour
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Walder, David


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pym, Francis
Walker, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ramsden, James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Lilley, F. J. P.
Rawlinson, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


Litchfield, Capt. John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n'C, dfield)
Ronton, David
Webster, David


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Longbottom, Charles
Ridsdale, Julian
Whitelaw, William


Longden, Gilbert
Rippon, Geoffrey
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Loveys, Walter H.
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


MacArthur, Ian
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


McLaren, Martin
Roots, William
Wise, A. R.


Maclay, Rt- Hon. John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Russell, Ronald
Woodhouse, C. M.


McMaster, Stanley R.
St. Clair, M.
Woodnutt, Mark


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Woollam, John


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Seymour, Leslie
Worsley, Marcus


Maddan, Martin
Sharples, Richard
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Magnnis, John E.
Shaw, M



Malland, Sir John
Skeet, T. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R,
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Smithers, Peter
Mr. Gordon Campbell.


Marlowe, Anthony






NOES


Abse, Leo
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Ainsley, William
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edelman, Maurice


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Callaghan, James
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Awbery, Stan
Cliffe, Michael
Fernyhough, E.


Baird, John
Collick, Percy
Finch, Harold


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fitch, Alan


Beaney, Alan
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fletcher, Eric


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Cronin, John
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bence, Cyril
Crosland, Anthony
Forman, J. C.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Darling, George
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Benson, Sir George
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Blyton, William
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)


Boardman, H.
Deer, George
Ginsburg, David


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Delargy, Hugh
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Dempsey, James
Gourlay, Harry


Bowles, Frank
Diamond, John
Greenwood, Anthony


Boyden, James
Dodds, Norman
Grey, Charles


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Donnelly, Desmond
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Driberg, Tom
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)







Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
McLeavy, Frank
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Gunter, Ray
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Skeffington, Arthur


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Manuel, A. C.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Hannan, William
Mapp, Charles
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mason, Roy
Sorensen, R. W.


Hayman, F. H.
Mayhew, Christopher
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Healey, Denis
Mellish, R. J.
Spriggs, Leslie


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Millan, Bruce
Steele, Thomas


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Milne, Edward
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stonehouse, John


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Monslow, Walter
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Hilton, A. V.
Moyle, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Holman, Percy
Mulley, Frederick
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Holt, Arthur
Neal, Harold
Swain, Thomas


Hoy, James H.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Symonds, J. B.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, A. E.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Hunter, A. E.
Oswald, Thomas
Thornton, Ernest


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Owen, Will
Timmons, John


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Paget, R. T.
Wade, Donald


Janner, Sir Barnett
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pargiter, G. A.
Warbey, William


Jeger, George
Parkin, B. T.
Watkins, Tudor


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Weitzman, David


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peart, Frederick
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pentland, Norman
Whitlock, William


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Prentice, R. E.
Willey, Frederick


Kelley, Richard
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Kenyon, Clifford
Probert, Arthur
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


King, Dr. Horace
Randall, Harry
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lawson, George
Rankin, John
Winterbottom, R. E.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Redhead, E. C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Reid, William
Woof, Robert


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Reynolds, G. W.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Lipton, Marcus
Rhodes, H.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Zilliacus, K.


McCann, John
Robertson, John (paisley)



MacColl, James
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McInnes, James
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ross, William
Mr. Sydney Irving.


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Division No. 50.]
AYES
[4.20 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Duncan, Sir James
Lambton, Viscount


Aitken, W. T.
Duthie, Sir William
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Amery, Rt- Hon. Julian
Eden, John
Leburn, Gilmour


Arbuthnot, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Atkins, Humphrey
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lilley, F. J. P.


Barber. Anthony
Farr, John
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Barlow, Sir John
Fell, Anthony
Litchfield, Capt. John


Barter, John
Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut' nC' dfield)


Batsford, Brian
Forrest, George
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Longbottom, Charles


Bell, Ronald
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Longden, Gilbert


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Freeth, Denzil
Loveys, Walter H.


Berkeley, Humphry
Gammans, Lady
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Gardner, Edward
MacArthur, Ian


Bidgood, John C.
Gibson-Watt, David
McLaren, Martin


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Sir John
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Biggs-Davison, John
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Godber, J. B.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Bishop, F. P.
Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley H.


Black, Sir Cyril
Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Bossom, Clive
Gough, Frederick
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gower, Raymond
Maddan, Martin


Box, Donald
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Maginnis, John E.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Green, Alan
Maitland, Sir John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gresham Cooke, R.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Braine, Bernard
Gurden, Harold
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Brewis, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marlowe, Anthony


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marshall, Douglas


Brooman-White, R.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marten, Neil


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Bryan, Paul
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maulding, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Buck, Antony
Hastings, Stephen
Mawby, Ray


Bullard, Denys
Hay, John
Maxwell- Hyslop, R. J.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mills, Stratton


Burden, F. A.
Hendry, Forbes
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nabarro, Gerald


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Neave, Airey


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hobson, John
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hocking, Philip N.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cary, Sir Robert
Holland, Philip
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hollingworth, John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Chataway, Christopher
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hopkins, Alan
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Churchill, Rt- Hon. Sir Winston
Hornby, R. P.
Partridge, E,


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Peel, John


Cleaver, Leonard
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Percival, Ian


Collard, Richard
Hughes-Young, Michael
Peyton, John


Cooke, Robert
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cooper, A. E.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Cordle, John
Jackson, John
Pitman, Sir James


Corfield, F. V.
James, David
Pitt, Miss Edith


Costain, A. P.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pott, Percivall


Coulson, Michael
Jennings, J. C.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior, J. M. L.


Critchtey, Julian
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Profumo, Rt- Hon. John


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Curran, Charles
Joseph, Sir Keith
Pym, Francis


Dance, James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ramsden, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rawlinson, Peter


de Ferranti, Basil
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Redmayne, Rt- Hon. Martin


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Doughty, Charles
Kirk, Peter
Renton, David


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


du Cann, Edward
Lagden, Godfrey
Ridsdale, Julian







Rippon, Geoffrey
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Wakefield, Sir Wayell (St. M'lebone)


Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Tapsell, Peter
Walder, David


Robson Brown, Sir William
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walker, Peter


Roots, William
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Wall, Patrick


Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Russell, Ronald
Temple, John M.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


St. Clair, M.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Webster, David


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Seymour, Leslie
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
William, Dudley (Exeter)


Sharples, Richard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Shaw, M.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wise, A. R.


Smithers, Peter
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Turner, Colin
Woodhouse, C. M.


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Speir, Rupert
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Woollam, John


Stevens, Geoffrey
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Stodart, J. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Vickers, Miss Joan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Storey, Sir Samuel
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
 Mr. Finlay and Mr. Whitelaw.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Ainsley, William
Gordon walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gourlay, Harry
Manuel, A. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Greenwood, Anthony
Mapp, Charles


Awbery, Stan
Grey, Charles
Mason, Roy


Baird, John
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mayhew, Christopher


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mellish, R. J.


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, W- (Exchange)
Millan, Bruce


Bellenger, Rt. Hon, F. J.
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Milne, Edward


Bence, Cyril
Gunter, Ray
Mitchison, G- R.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Monslow, Walter


Benson, Sir George
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moyle, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mulley, Frederick


Blyton, William
Hannan, William
Neal, Harold


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip ( Derby, S.)


Bowles, Frank
Healey, Denis
Oliver, G. H.


Boyden, James
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Oram, A. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Owen, Will


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Paget, R. T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, c.)
Hilton, A. V.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Holman, Percy
Pargiter, G. A.


Callaghan, James
Holt, Arthur
Parkin, B. T.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Pavitt, Laurence


Cliffe, Michael
Hoy, James H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Collick, Percy
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Peart, Frederick


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pentland, Norman


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Cronin, John
Hunter, A. E.
Prentice, R. E.


Crosland. Anthony
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Darling, George
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Randall, Harry


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rankin, John


Deer, George
Jeger, George
Redhead, E. C.


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Redd, W Milam


Dempsey, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. A.Creech (Wakefield)
Reynolds, G. W.


Diamond, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes, H,


Dodds, Norman
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Donnelly, Desmond
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robertson, John (Parsley)


Driberg, Tom
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon, John
Keiley, Richard
Ross, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Kenyon, Clifford
Shinwell, Rt- Hon. E.


Edelman, Maurice
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
King, Dr. Horace
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, Arthur


Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Finch, Harold
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fitch, Alan
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fletcher, Eric
Loughlin, Charles
Sorensen, R. W-


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
McCann, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Forman, J. C.
McInnes, James
Steele, Thomas


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stonehouse, John


Galpern, Sir Myer
McLeavy, Frank
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R- (Vauxhall)







Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Watkins, Tudor
Winterbottom, R. E.


Swain, Thomas
Weitzman, David
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Symonds, J. B. 
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Woof, Robert


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
White, Mrs. Eirene
Wyatt, Woodrow


Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Whitlock, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Wilkins, W. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Thornton, Ernest
Willey, Frederick



Timmons, John
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wade, Donald
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and


Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Lawson.


Warbey, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Noes 201. Order No. 41 (Business Commitee):—

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 201.

Division No. 51.]
AYES
[4.31 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Dance, James
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Aitken, w. T.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jennings, J. C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
de Ferranti, Basil
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Arbuthnot, John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Doughty, Charles
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Atkins, Humphrey
Drayson, G- B.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Barber, Anthony
du Cann, Edward
Joseph, Sir Keith


Barlow, Sir John
Duncan, Sir James
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Barter, John
Duthie, Sir William
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Batsford, Brian
Eden, John
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bell, Ronald
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Kirk, Peter


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kitson, Timothy


Berkeley, Humphry
Fair, John
Lagden, Godfrey


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Fell, Anthony
Lambton, Viscount


Bidgood, John C.
Finlay, Graeme
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Biffen, John
Fisher, Nigel
Leburn, Gilmour


Biggs-Davison, John
Forrest, George
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bishop, F. P.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lilley, F. J. P.


Black, Sir Cyril
Freeth, Denzil
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Bossom, Clive
Gammans, Lady
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gardner, Edward
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Box, Donald
Gibson-watt, David
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Gilmour, Sir John
Longbottom, Charles


Boyle, Sir Edward
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Longden, Gilbert


Braine, Bernard
Gosber, J. B.
Loveys, Waiter H.


Brewis, John
Goodhart, Philip
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Goodhew, Victor
MacArthur, Ian


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Gough, Frederick
McLaren, Martin


Brooman-White, R.
Gower, Raymond
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Green, Alan
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Bryan, Paul
Gurden, Harold
McMaster, Stanley R.


Buck, Antony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Bullard, Denys
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maddan, Martin


Burden, F. A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maginnis, John E.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harrison, col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maitland, Sir John


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hastings, Stephen
Marlowe, Anthony


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hay, John
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marshall, Douglas


Channon, H- P. G-
Hendry, Forbes
Marten, Neil


Chataway, Christopher
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hilt, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hobson, John
Mawby, Ray


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hocking, Philip N.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cleaver, Leonard
Holland, Philip
Mills, Stratton


Collard, Richard
Hollingworth, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Cooke, Robert
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Nabarro, Gerald


Cooper, A. E,
Hopkins, Alan
Neave, Airey


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hornby, R. P.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Cordle, John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Corfield, F. V.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Costain, A. P.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Coulson, Michael
Hughes-Young, Michael
Osborne, John (Hallam)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Critchley, Julian
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Jackson, John
Partridge, E.


Curran, Charles
James, David
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)




Peel, John
Seymour, Leslie
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Percival, Ian
Sharples, Richard
van Straubenzee, w. R.


Peyton, John
Shaw, M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Smith, Dudly (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Smithers, Peter
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Pitman, Sir James
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Walder, David


Pitt, Miss Edith
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Walker, Peter


Pott, Percivall
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Powell, Rt Hon. J. Enoch
Speir, Rupert
Wall, Patrick


Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Ward, Dame Irene


Prior, J. M. L.
Stodart, J. A.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Stoddart-Scott, Col- Sir Malcolm
Webster, David


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Storey, Sir Samuel
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pym, Francis
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Whitelaw, William


Ramsden, James
Tapsell, Peter
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Rawlinson, Peter
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Renton, David
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Wise, A. R.


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Temple, John M.
Wolrige, Gordon, Patrick


Ridsdale, Julian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Rippon, Geoffrey
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Woodnutt, Mark


Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Woollam, John


Robson Brown, Sir William
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Roots, William
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin



Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Russell, Ronald
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


St. Clair, M.
Turner, Colin
Mr. Gordon Campbell.


Scott-Hopkins, James
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Erie
Kenyon, Clifford


Ainsley, William
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Forman, J. C-
King, Dr. Horace


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Awbery, Stan
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Baird, John
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Lipton, Marcus


Beaney, Alan
Ginsburg, David
Loughlin, Charles


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McCann, John


Bence, Cyril
Gourlay, Harry
MacColl, James


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Greenwood, Anthony
McInnes, James


Benson, Sir George
Grey, Charles
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McLeavy, Frank


Elyton, William
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacMillan, Malcolm (western Isles)


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Grimond, Rt- Hon. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Gunter, Ray
Manuel, A. C.


Bowles, Frank
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Mapp, Charles


Boyden, James
Hall, Rt. Hn- Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mason, Roy


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mayhew, Christopher


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hannan, William
Mellish, R. J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Millan, Bruce


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, c.)
Hayman, F. H.
Milne, Edward


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Healey, Denis
Mitchison, G. R.


Callaghan, James
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Monslow, Walter


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Moyle, Arthur


Cliffe, Michael
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mulley, Frederick


Collick, Percy
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Neal, Harold


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hilton, A. V.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S-)
Holman, Percy
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Cronin, John
Holt, Arthur
Oliver, G. H.


Crosland, Anthony
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Oram, A. E.


Darling, George
Hoy, James H.
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Will


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W)


Deer, George
Hunter, A. E.
Pargiter, G. A.


Delargy, Hugh
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Parkin, B. T.


Dempsey, James
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pavitt, Laurence


Diamond, John
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dodds, Norman
Janner, Sir Barnett
Peart, Frederick


Donnelly, Desmond
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Driberg, Tom
Jeger, George
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prentice, R. E.


Edelman, Maurice
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Proctor, W. T.


Fernyhough, E.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Randall, Harry


Finch, Harold
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rankin, John


Fitch, Alan
Kelley, Richard
Redhead, E. C.







Reid, William
Steele, Thomas
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Reynolds, G. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Rhodes, H.
Stonehouse, John
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Wilkins, W- A.


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Willey, Frederick


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Stross, Dr.Barnet (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ross, William
Swain, Thomas
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Symonds, J. B.
Williams, w. R. (Openshaw)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Skeffington, Arthur
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Thornton, Ernest
Woof, Robert


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Timmons, John
Wyatt, Woodrow


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wade, Donald
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Snow, Julian
Wainwright, Edwin
Zilliacus, K.


Sorensen, R. W.
Warbey, William



Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Watkins, Tudor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spriggs, Leslie
Weitzman, David
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.

The following is the Report of the Business Committee:

That
(a) the remaining Proceedings in Committee on the Army Reserve Bill shall be divided into the parts specified in the second column of the Table set out below;
(b) the two days which under the Order [25th January] are given to the said Proceedings, and portions of those days, shall be allotted in the manner shown in that Table; and
(c) subject to the provisions of the Order [25th January], each part of the Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE


Allotted Day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings




p.m.


First day
Clause 1 (so far as not already disposed of)
7.30



Clause 2
10.30


Second day
Clauses 3 to 8 New Clauses,
8.30



Schedule and new Schedules (if any)
10.30

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS ETC.) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 4.—(REDUCTION AND REMISSION OF RATES PAYABLE BY CHARITABLE AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS.)

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: I beg to move, in page 4, line 21, after "then" to insert:
after the rating authority are satisfied following reasonable inquiry that the lands and heritages are within the categories described in either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection and".
This Amendment is a further attempt to clarify the position of Scottish local authorities in this matter. The Amendment seeks to give them statutory powers to ascertain the validity of information given in the notice by organisations when applying for mandatory relief, or, alternatively, to request those organisations for additional information. At present, nothing in subsection (2) of the Clause requires an organisation even to reply to letters which a local authority may send as a result of its application, or even to reply to a request for further or additional information.
As the Clause stands, it is almost tantamount to an organisation being in the position of dictating to a local authority. For example, the Bill says:
If notice in writing is given to the rating authority not later than the thirtieth day of June in any year that any lands and heritages…then, subject to the provisions…
In effect, that means that when a local authority receives a notice from an organisation and proceeds to give or refuse mandatory relief, it has no right or opportunity to ascertain certain facts of which it ought to be in possession. In Committee, the Lord Advocate said differences of interpretation would arise as to what was and what was not a charitable organisation, and that it would be a matter to be decided by the courts rather than by the local authorities.
It is entirely wrong that at this stage we should have definitions in a Bill which will give rise to litigation. It may be all right for some of the fee-paying schools such as Gordonstoun, which has received considerable publicity recently as a result of a certain event, a school which is regarded in the Income Tax Acts as being a charitable organisation, or Fettes College where, I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proud to have been educated. Those are schools which will have mandatory relief under this provision. I understand that other distinguished members of the Government Front Bench, such as the Leader of the House and the Lord Advocate, were also educated at that school. No doubt at future general elections they will be proud to proclaim at the hustings that they were educated in a charitable organisation.
In St. Andrews, in Fife, we have two schools with a total rateable value of about £8,600. The rates due in the current year would be about £6,352, giving a relief of £3,176. Of that, the county requisition would be about £5,100 which means a loss to St. Andrews of no less than £2,000 instead of an income of about £1,252.
The fees at Gordonstoun are more than £500 a year, about the fees paid at Eton. Organisations such as that will be able to afford the cost of legal action if a local authority refuses to give relief under this Clause. But organisations like old-age pensioners' associations, of which there are many in Scotland, because of the lack of sustenance provided by the Government for such people, boy scouts' organisations, even rifle clubs and badminton clubs will be in an awkward position, because, although they would be covered by certain interpretations of the Recreational Charities Act, they would not have the wherewithal to go to court to establish their claims. Many of them have no dealings whatever with the Inland Revenue and would not be in a position, therefore, to be registered as charities under the Income Tax Acts.
The Pritchard Report, which was mentioned in Committee, made some valuable recommendations, one of which could well have been accepted in


Scotland. That was Recommendation 18, which said:
The proposed compulsory registration of certain classes of charitable trusts with the Ministry of Education or the Charity Commissioners should be extended to include all charities in rateable occupation of land, and made applicable for rating purposes. This would meet the need for a cheap and expeditious test of the status of a candidate for mandatory relief.
To some extent, that is our case this afternoon.
In Committee, the Lord Advocate said that these organisations could have recourse to the courts, but the main question is whether we ought to have some system whereby they could expeditiously and cheaply have a test of status. If the Government had seen fit to accept that recommendation for Scotland, it would have obviated many of the difficulties which are bound to result from the Bill. It is extremely bad legislation which provides ground for unnecessary litigation.
The words in the Amendment,
after the rating authorities are satisfied following reasonable inquiry
are not new, for they were used in Section 17 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, which says:
Where a rating authority are satisfied that the owner of any lands and heritages…
We have used those precise words in our Amendment. The local authority should have some statutory right to make inquiries of these organisations when they apply for mandatory relief and should have the right to ascertain the facts and seek more information from the organisations.
The wording of the Amendment is by no means new, but it would greatly improve and facilitate the working of the Bill and I ask the Government to accept it in the spirit in which it is moved.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The Amendment which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) has moved raises the same point as he made in Committee. He then moved a somewhat similar Amendment, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate gave, I think, a very convincing reply. Perhaps the hon.

Gentleman may care, if he has with him the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage of our proceedings, to glance, while I am speaking, at column 68.
I realise that what worries hon. Members opposite is that they fear that a self-styled charity, merely by giving notice in writing, may thereby be able to obtain mandatory relief and that no inquiry by the local authority will be possible. As my right hon. and learned Friend explained at considerable length in Committee, that is not so. What will happen is that the body concerned will put in its claim to be regarded as a charity. Normally, the matter will be quite clear, particularly if the body is already getting relief as a charity for Income Tax purposes. But where the local authority is not satisfied with the claim it will so inform the body; it will then be up to the body which considers itself a charity to go to the courts to get confirmation that it is in fact a qualifying charity.
The trouble with the Amendment is that it applies a subjective test. If the Amendment were accepted all that would be necessary would be for the local authority to be satisfied. But the local authority may, of course, make a mistake in becoming satisfied: if it did make a mistake it would be very difficult for the aggrieved charity to do anything about the matter. In place of this proposed subjective test the Bill, as drafted, applies a clear objective test: are the lands and heritages within the categories so described, or are they not?
If they are within them they qualify for mandatory relief and if they are not they do not get that relief. It is a question of fact, not of opinion.

Mr. Gourlay: That is the point that the Amendment seeks to cover. The local authority ought to have the right to ascertain those facts from the organisation if it has not had all the information in the original application. There is no statutory form of application.

Mr. Galbraith: If the so-called charity does not satisfy the local authority, then the local authority will charge it the full rates and if the charity does not pay the rates and still considers itself a charity, then the due course of the law will take place. That is the only way that one has to settle this sort of difficulty. It will


not depend on what the local authority thinks; it will not be a subjective test. It will not be based on the opinion of the local authority; but on a matter of fact, which, in the last resort, can be established in the courts.

Mr. William Ross: Surely if the Amendment is accepted, the right to go to the courts still remains.

Mr. Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman recalls the debate that we had in Committee he will realise that in that case it is a very much more difficult matter. Then the court would be dealing with whether or not the local authority was right in being satisfied or not right in being satisfied, which is a much harder matter to determine.
I want to make quite clear that the Clause does not put local authorities at the mercy of bodies claiming to be charities any more than it puts genuine charities at the mercy of the local authorities that dispute their claims. All that the Clause does is to provide an objective test which the local authority must apply in making its investigations and which, in the exceptional case of a disputed claim, will also be applied by the courts.

Miss Margaret Herbison: The hon. Gentleman has said that the local authority must apply the objective test when making an investigation. There is nothing in the Clause about an investigation. That is what we are worried about on this side of the House.

Mr. Galbraith: I thought that I had dealt with this point. Let us go through it quite simply. What will happen is that a body regarding itself as a charity will so inform the local authority. The local authority will then say, "Why do you think that you are a charity?" The body will say, "Because we get Income Tax relief", or on some other ground of relief. If the local authority is satisfied, that is the end of the matter. If the local authority is not satisfied and persists in asking the so-called charity to pay full rates, the charity will either decide to pay the rates or not. If it decides not to pay them, then the matter will go to the courts. The courts will then decide, as a question of fact, whether or not the charity comes within Clause 4 (2, a) and (2, b), or whether it

does not: the courts will not be concerned whether the local authority was right to be satisfied or not.
It is for these reason's that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. James McInnes: I must say quite candidly that the hon. Gentleman has given a most unsatisfactory reply to the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) in merely saying that my hon. Friend submitted a subjective test and that the Bill provides for an objective test. Wherein does the Bill provide for this objective test? The local authority must obviously satisfy itself that the charitable organisation comes within the Income Tax laws. Surely that is not enough. A charitable organisation may find itself within the Income Tax laws, but there are other considerations.
Would it not be right for the local authority, for example, to take into account monetary considerations and the financial resources of the charitable organisation? Surely these factors ought to be taken into consideration. It is because of these factors that I consider the Amendment to be imperative. Local authorities should institute inquiries to satisfy themselves that the charitable organisation concerned comes within the categories described in Clause 4 (2, a) and (2, b) and also that there is some degree of justification for the granting of the 50 per cent. remission of rates.
5.0 p.m.
May I illustrate my case by taking as an example the Loretto School, in Musselburgh. This is a privately owned, fee-paying school. It paid rates on a rateable value of £3,318. This was prior to revaluation. With the rates at 22s. 9d. in the £, it paid altogether £3,774. After revaluation, the school paid rates on a rateable value of £3,808. In other words, its valuation was increased by £490. I am assuming that the rates were still 22s. 9d. in the £. The figure may, however, have been less. Assuming that the rates remained the same, on a rateable value of £3,808, the school paid £4,431, a difference of £657 between the old and the new rates.
Under this Clause, Loretto School can justifiably make an application for a remission of 50 per cent. of the leviable


rate. If the application is granted, a remission of 50 per cent. of £4,431 will amount to £2,215, leaving the school to pay £2,215. Prior to revaluation it paid £3,774, but as it will now pay only £2,215, it will be better off by £1,559. We therefore have the situation of private fee-paying schools being given the opportunity of paying less rates than they did pre-war.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Subsidised by the ratepayers.

Mr. McInnes: Subsidised, as my hon. Friend says, by the ratepayers of Musselburgh and Scotland generally, subsidised by shopkeepers, by commercial firms, and by industrial undertakings, at a time when almost every section of the community is being asked to pay between 50 and 100 per cent. more rates than it did prior to revaluation.
There is another point about these fee-paying schools. The valuation which has been placed on Loretto School is equivalent to £15 per pupil. The valuations placed on local authority schools in Midlothian work out as follows: Musselburgh Grammar School, 10 guineas per pupil; Dalkeith High School, £11 10s. per pupil; Penicuik Senior Secondary School, £10 15s. per pupil; Lasswade Senior Secondary School, £12 per pupil. These sums approximate to that in respect of Loretto School, but the local authority schools do not get a 50 per cent. remission of rates.
Surely this preferential treatment is grossly unjustified. This is snobbery in legislation. It is class legislation. Let us not "kid" ourselves about this, because no one, in the light of the facts, can justify a 50 per cent. remission of rates to schools coming within the categories laid down in Clause 4.
I would not have objected if similar facilities were being afforded to local authority fee-paying schools and to local authority schools generally. I would have been satisfied that there was a justification for all schools and all forms of education to be encouraged by this method, but this is deliberate class legislation in respect of privately-owned fee-paying schools simply because they come within the category of being tax

dodgers. Even in the matter of Income Tax they do not have to fulfil the same obligations as the rest of the community.
I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. James Dempsey: When we discussed this matter in Committee we did our utmost to prevail on the Minister to realise that the purpose of the proposed wording was to strengthen the Bill. There is nothing mischievous about the Amendment. It is a sensible suggestion, and it is being argued by people who have had some experience of dealing with charitable organisations from a local authority angle.
The Minister this afternoon seems in a great hurry to drive charitable organisations and local authorities into court to settle by litigation what is a bona fide charitable organisation. If the Amendment is accepted, in many instances there will be no need to resort to litigation because the local authority concerned will conduct a full investigation to establish in no uncertain manner that the organisation in question is a bona fide charitable one. If the Amendment is not accepted, it will be difficult to define which bodies come within the purview of the Bill and which remain outside it, thus fostering in many cases unnecessary litigation.
I am, therefore, at a loss to understand why we debated this matter in Committee and why we are compelled to debate it again today. No great political principle is at stake. No legal issue arises. No administrative difficulties are involved in accepting the Amendment, and it seems to be sheer obstinacy on the part of the Minister to refuse to accept it. After all, we are dealing with a Clause which asks a charitable organisation, or an alleged charitable organisation, to notify a local authority of its position. That is all that is involved.
I can visualise a host of difficulties arising because all sorts of organisations claim to be charities. We receive applications from all sorts of associations to be registered as charities. As a former member of the local authority, I have had applications even from football clubs. The Rangers Supporters Club, the Celtic Supporters Club, and other professional supporters clubs


claim that they are charities because they spend part of their finances on charitable work. If a local authority has to assess whether an organisation is a charitable one merely on the submission of a notice by that organisation, the task will be an almost impossible one.
It is clear that if it is mainly or wholly a charitable undertaking it qualifies for relief. But how is it humanly possible for a local authority to determine whether or not an application is from an organisation which is wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes, unless that organisation submits a detailed account of its activities and its income and expenditure, and states what proportion of that expenditure is spent on charitable undertakings? Unless a local authority receives that necessary information it cannot possibly adjudicate. Yet the Minister says that all that is required is a notice from the organisation claiming relief.
That is absolutely nonsensical. In most cases a local authority will have no alternative but to refuse. Some bona fide charitable organisations will be willing to give a detailed statement, but others will not be so co-operative. Some of them can be extraordinarily difficult, and unless we have something on the Statute to support our point of view we shall get into considerable trouble with these organisations. I know that it is difficult to define a charity. We have heard about this from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). I am naturally interested in all the fee-paying schools that will receive relief.
I want to ask a question about some fee-paying schools which have not yet been mentioned. Nobody has yet said where an approved school stands. Approved schools are fee-paying schools. Some of the parents have to pay part of the cost of persons remanded in approved schools. I wonder whether they will receive the same treatment as other fee-paying schools. The Minister has so far remained completely non-committal on the matter. No matter how small may be the earnings of an individual, if he has a delinquent child who has been sent to an approved school he must make a contribution towards that child's upkeep from his limited earnings.
I know that many members of the Cabinet take pride in claiming that they are products of fee-paying schools. According to the Bill's definition, a fee-paying school is a charity, and we can therefore look on these Ministers as charity boys of the Government. If the schools from which these charity boys have come are to have the advantage of this relief from rates we are entitled to know where other educational establishments stand.
It is absolutely essential that local authorities should have the necessary power and prerogative to investigate applications from certain organisations. It is a recognised fact that some charitable organisations can be accepted as genuine, but there are others about which there is considerable doubt. Local authorities require power to be able to satisfy themselves that organisations claiming to operate wholly or mainly for charitable purposes do so. That is why the Amendment has been worded in this way. No great bone of contention is at stake. No political principles are involved, and there is no threat to bring down the Government. There is no threat to the political future of the Ministers arrayed on the Front Bench. They are safe for some time yet.
But do not they realise that in introducing a Bill of this kind they must ensure that this provision can be applied with discretion, firmness and meticulous thought by local authorities? No local authority can hope to accomplish this mission unless it is given power to elicit from applicant organisations all the details necessary to enable the authority to determine, one way or the other, whether those organisations constitute charitable organisations under the Clause.
That is all the Amendment asks. It is a very modest request, and I cannot understand why the Minister will not grant it. I hope that he will have further thoughts on the matter, and will realise that the purpose of the Amendment is not to act mischievously but to strengthen the Bill. We are offering the Minister our help and aid. We are giving him the benefit of our experience and advice free of charge, and he should have a similar charitable mind, when dealing with a charitable cause, by indicating his willingness to accept the Amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: This is a very important Clause. It is another example of the Government overriding local authorities and telling them what they ought to do. At the moment these establishments have to pay their share of the rates, but they will be allowed to make application to the local authorities, who will then decide whether or not they will remit the rates. There is no room for argument; the Clause is quite clear. It says:
If notice in writing is given…that any lands and heritages are occupied by, or by trustees for, a charity and are wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes
the rates to be levied
shall not exceed one-half of the rate that would be leviable apart from the provisions of this subsection".
If the Under-Secretary is in doubt about it, let him look at the proviso, which says:
Provided that where lands and heritages cease to be within the said categories, a previous notice given…shall not have effect…
The operative instrument in relation to the action of a local authority in connection with the remission of rates is the notice, and nothing else.
I did not have the benefit of taking part in the proceedings in Committee, and I was therefore denied the pleasure of hearing the outpourings and legal wisdom of the Lord Advocate, but I can see nothing in the Clause that provides that a local authority has any right to refuse if one of these bodies sends it a notice stating that it is a charity. It is said that the local authority can refuse to grant the application. Equally, I say that if the local authority asks for information the body that has given notice can tell the authority that it has no right to that information. It is said that the auhority can take the organisaion to court for misrepresentation of facts, but in this case such misrepresentation is not a criminal offence. Much less serious breaches have merited penalty clauses, but there is no penalty in respect of the misuse of these notices.
That is the position in law, and I should have thought that it would have been far better to give a local authority the right to make inquiry to see whether or not the organisation concerned falls within the terms of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b).
I think that it was the Under-Secretary himself who said that local authorities make mistakes. We are trying to avoid the making of mistakes. We do not want to deny to these poor, charitable bodies, these impoverished institutions—Gordonstoun, Loretto and the rest of them—the right to get relief from rates. We want to make sure that local authorities do not make mistakes. Or is it that the Under-Secretary does not want these institutions to proclaim their need of charity to the local authorities?
I think it a good thing that we have been able to have some sort of debate on this Clause. I am sure that the whole British nation will be surprised to discover that Gordonstoun is in need of charity. I have often wondered why the English call their private schools, "public schools". Now we know. They need public assistance.
The Government propose to take no chances. There is to be no argument. There is no means test about this public assistance. There is no argument about whether or not it is needed. That applies only to people who are receiving unemployment benefit and cannot get quite enough to keep body and soul together. It applies to widows and other people in that sort of category. But not to public schools. They are charities, and so they just send a notice stating that to the local authority and, with the rest of the country complaining about the rating burden and about the new assessments, 50 per cent. is the maximum of rates which is to be paid by these newly discovered charities.
All the legal strength of Scotland tells us that it would be wrong to give any right to the local authorities to make sure that these are charities, that they are still charities and wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes. Consider what the town councillors in Scotland will think about this, the guardians of the "bawbees" of the town. As soon as they receive a notice, the notice is right. Of course, if they are in any doubt, if they take the step which they have no right to take on receipt of this notice, and refuse it, they are liable, not to prosecution but to action in the courts.
I do not doubt that the Lord Advocate thinks this a wonderful thing for lawyers. But, after all, even local


authorities have the right to choose who shall defend them. Who are the rating authorities in Scotland? It is not just the City of Glasgow. It is not just the counties. The rating authorities include small burghs, not authorities which have legal departments. Indeed, there may well be burghs which would shrink from the expense of defending a legal action. After all, the scales are weighed against them. It is the notice which is effective and it is on the notice that they act. They have nothing to do with the notice except to receive it, to take note of it and to act upon it. And a Scottish Lord Advocate states that it would be wrong to give the local authorities the legal right to make inquiries.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant): I said during the Committee stage proceedings that any sensible local authority would make inquiries before giving a 50 per cent. rating relief and it has the power to do that under the Bill.

Mr. Ross: It has the power to do this under the Bill? Where?

The Lord Advocate: Any local authority is entitled to refuse rating relief—

Mr. Dempsey: That is different.

The Lord Advocate: —if it is not satisfied after making due inquiry that the alleged charity is a charity. It can do so and then go to the courts.

Mr. Ross: We have had at least three attempts by the Lord Advocate and he finished up by proving my point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that they had a power in the Bill to make inquiries. That was his first effort. Then he said, "after making due inquiry". Then he said that any sensible local authority would do something. A local authority doing something and a local authority having the power to do something are two entirely different things. That would determine the reaction of the person about whom the authority was making inquiries. If someone comes to a person's house and demands entry, the first thing asked is whether they have the power to do so. In actual fact there is no power in this Bill, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated, giving the right to a local authority to make these inquiries. In fact, that is what we

are asking. One would think that our request was world-shattering. It is plain common sense—which is more than can be said for the utterances of the Lord Advocate. All we want to insert is:
after the rating authority are satisfied following reasonable inquiry that the lands and heritages are within the categories described in either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection.
I appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is sitting on the Government Front Bench looking as mystified as ever. We were told on another occasion that it is right that the right hon. Gentleman should not attend Committees, so that he may come with a fresh mind to problems. If his mind is as fresh as it ought to be, he will be wondering what all the fuss is about.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can see absolutely nothing wrong with our Amendment and everything to commend it. Since he is taking away the power of rating from the local authorities, and making it mandatory on them to place this share of the rates that would have been paid by these charitable institutions on other section of the people—tenants, shopkeepers and industrialists—before they do so, and to ensure that they have complied with the law, they should be permitted and empowered to make reasonable inquiry. I should have thought that the Secretary of State would be able to see that right away, and tell his junior colleagues and his legal colleagues to stop making a fuss, and that this is the least we can do for the Scottish local authorities. There is yet time for the Secretary of State to assert himself and save recourse to the courts and make the encouragement of the legal colleagues of the Lord Advocate quite unnecessary.

Miss Herbison: The interjection of the Lord Advocate and the reply we received from the Under-Secretary of State seemed to back the case which hon. Members on this side of the House have been trying to make. This Amendment is important. Both during the Committee stage and this afternoon the Government have made heavy weather of it. It is important because here for the first time the law is to make it mandatory on local authorities to give this 50 per cent. relief to charitable organisations. However, I shall not discuss this or that


charitable organisation. It may be that on Third Reading we can develop that matter.
5.30 p.m.
The Under-Secretary today gave us nothing new in addition to what we have had from the Lord Advocate. He was merely opposing an objective to a subjective test. He said that the local authority could make inquiries from the applicant before it reached a decision. What have we in the Bill? All the supposedly charitable organisation need to do is to give notice in writing that it is covered by either (a) or (b). No details are given in (a) or (b). The Under-Secretary cannot show me anywhere in Clause 4 where the local authority would even have the right to say to any charitable organisation which has sent in that notice, "Are the facts in this correct?" Nor could it make reasonable inquiries.
I turn to the information given us in Committee by the Lord Advocate. The Under-Secretary told my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment today to look at column 68 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee. I have examined and re-examined that column. In it the Lord Advocate told us:
I quite agree that nothing is specifically stated with regard to appeals or court action or the like, but it is plain, I think beyond doubt, if a local authority disputed a claim, the matter could and would be litigated in the courts.
I do not think there is any doubt about that. He went on to say:
In order to reach a quick and rapid decision,"—
this is the local authority—
I think that it would say, ' Do you get relief as a charity for Income Tax purposes?"—
That is our complaint. There is nothing in this Clause which gives the local authority the right even to ask that simple question, "Do you get relief as a charity for Income Tax purposes?" If the Lord Advocate thinks it would be good for the local authority to be able to ask even that simple question, I cannot see why he resists our Amendment. It is the one thing which would give the local authority the right to ask that question.
Local authorities which are not satisfied do not have the chance of asking questions of charitable organisations which, if answered, would allow the local authority to give this mandatory relief. They would accept that this is being placed upon them, however unwilling they are, by the Secretary of State. If they could get points cleared up with the organisation, responsible bodies would have to accept the law once it was operating. Under the Clause as it stands they have not the right to ask simple questions.
The Lord Advocate based part of his case on stating that they could ask these simple questions of the organisation. He said:
If the answer were 'yes', then, because of subsection (10), the body would qualify. If the answer were 'no', it would not qualify.
That is simple enough, but the local authority has not the right to ask that simple question. He went on to a more difficult case, and said:
In a borderline case, if a local authority decided that it was not satisfied about the claim…
the very words we are asking to have put into the Bill—
it would so inform the body concerned".
Is that a subjective or an objective decision of the local authority?—
and it would then be up to that body to go to the courts and get a declarator that it is a qualifying charity.
Then he came to the alternative which might run small burghs into great expense. The organisation might say, "We still consider ourselves a charity and we will not pay rates." The Lord Advocate realised that and said:
Alternatively, the local authority could sue the body for rates and then it would have to satisfy the courts that it was in fact a charity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 5th December, 1961; c. 68.]
Some local authorities are small burghs. They would be involved in legal expenditure which their ratepayers ought not to have to bear. The whole case is in favour of having these words included in the Bill.
I turn to another point made by the Lord Advocate. He said that because of this subjective test it would be extremely difficult to get the matter right, but he did not develop that. He did not tell us why it would be extremely difficult to get the matter right. It


seems that every speech which has been made by Government spokesmen has backed to the hilt the case we are making. Local authorities ought to have this right.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked, I ask that the Secretary of State should reply to this debate. He, a great man of fredom, is putting a mandatory obligation on to local authorities. He is saying to responsible local authorities in Scotland, "You cannot even ask one single question of the organisation that makes an application". That is completely wrong. I ask the Secretary of State now to tell us that at long last he is willing to accept the Amendment. If he cannot accept the Amendment, I ask that he should say that the case has been so forcibly made that an Amendment on similar lines, but perhaps in more legal language, will be put in in another place.

Mr. Galbraith: I speak again with the permission of the House.
The continuation of this debate was undertaken by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), who picked out the figures for Loretto School. I do not know if he had all the figures for Scotland, but of all the figures I had Loretto is the only one of a school which as a result of this Bill will pay less in hard cash. All the other schools for which I had figures, which I gave in Committee, will, even after the provisions of this Bill, be paying more in hard cash than they were before.

Mr. McInnes: The hon. Gentleman did not provide any figures for the Committee. He mentioned one or two, but we sought specific information about these fee-paying schools to enable us to determine the justification or otherwise of the situation, and we did not get it.

Mr. Galbraith: Unless my memory is playing me false, which is possible, I mentioned Loretto, Trinity College, Glenalmond, Morrison's Academy, Crieff, the Dollar Academy, and Gordonstoun, Morayshire. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Fettes?"] I have not got the figures for Fettes. Of these five, only one will pay less under the Bill than it paid before. All the others will pay more.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to insinuate that the other schools will not receive the 50 per cent. mandatory relief?

Mr. Galbraith: No, I am not trying to give that impression. I am giving examples showing that this mandatory relief will not be such a desperate thing for local authorities, because in most cases they will get more in hard cash under the provisions of the Bill than they received before. This is a comparatively simple point.
Whatever hon. Members may think about the merits of these private or public schools, whatever one likes to call them, the fact remains that they are charities. Therefore, they benefit under the Bill. If hon. Members wish to attack them, Amendments to that effect should have been tabled. But hon. Members cannot attack these schools by suggesting that the local authority should have discretion, because these schools are charities and the object of the Bill is that charities should have mandatory relief.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) asked me what right a local authority had to investigate a claim. He and one or two of his hon. Friends wanted to know whether this is laid down. As they know, it is not laid down anywhere. Nevertheless, it is clearly implied. Here I think I am quoting what my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate said. It is clearly implied. Anybody who claims a right such as rate relief must substantiate his claim.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that there was not room for argument—

Miss Herbison: The Under-Secretary cannot brush us off with the statement that any organisation which makes an application must substantiate its claim. That is our quarrel. There is no provision in the Bill to this effect. The Lord Advocate has told us that, if a local authority is not satisfied, all it can do is to go to court and spend the ratepayers' money. There is no provision to the effect that the organisation must substantiate its claim.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Lady is tempting me.

Miss Herbison: Tell me.

Mr. Galbraith: —I intend to succumb to her temptation, but not at the moment.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that there was no room for argument. He is right. There is not meant to be any room for argument. This may be what separates the two sides of the House. It is not the intention of the Government that there should be any discretion left to the local authority, at least as regards charity. If a body is a charity, it ought to get mandatory relief.

Mr. Ross: The Government have made the point that a local authority can make mistakes. Would it not be far better for mistakes to be obviated by reasonable inquiry than for them to be put right by legal action?

Mr. Galbraith: Here I think we shall get some help from what my right hon. and learned Friend said in Committee, which perhaps the hon. Lady did not notice. He said:
If a body says it is a charity but does not produce evidence to satisfy the local authority, the authority can say, We do not consider that you are a charity, on the information which you have given,—or which you have not given—and accordingly we shall levy full rates upon you.' It is then up to the body either to produce evidence to make the local authority change its mind, or to raise an action in court. There is nothing in the subsection to prevent a local authority from saying 'No', if it considers that the body is not a charity.
What the subsection does, and the Amendment does not, is to ensure that where there is a dispute in a very technical branch of the law the court shall have full power to decide one way or the other, and that it shall not be left to decide finally whether a body is charitable under the Income Tax Acts. A local authority is not the best body for making that decision."—[OFFICIAI. REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 5th December, 1961; c. 76–7.]

5.45 p.m.

Miss Herbison: The Under-Secretary said that I should have read this passage also. I assure him that in preparing my case for the Amendment I have read everything that happened in Committee. There is another course. If the local authority says, "No. We are not going to give you this relief because we do not consider you are a charity", the organisation can refuse to pay its rates. Which body has to pay money for litigation in the first instance? Which body has to institute the proceedings and risk the ratepayers' money. It is the local authority.

Mr. Galbraith: At the end of the day somebody has to decide whether a body is a charity. The Opposition say that it should be for the local authority to decide that. We say that it should be for the courts. The effect of the Clause as drafted is that relief of one-half of the rates otherwise leviable can be given only if the premises are within the categories described. This means that the applicant has to prove that this is the case. The words in the Bill apply an objective test: are they lands and heritages within the categories so described? The effect of the Amendment is to substitute a subjective test: is the local authority satisfied that the lands and heritages are within the categories so described?
The rating authority will no doubt, as described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, satisfy itself by whatever means it thinks best—for example, by examining the body's constitution or accounts or inquiring whether it is regarded as a charity for Income Tax purposes—the rating authority will try to satisfy itself in those ways that the application passes the objective test. If the local authority decides that the organisation fails to do so and demands the full rates and if the occupier then refuses to pay, the matter will in the last resort, but only in the last resort, be decided by the courts. The final decision will be for the courts. When they are considering the matter they will not have to consider the satisfaction or otherwise of the local authority; they will be considering a matter of fact. It is for those reasons that I regret we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Gourlay: Does the Under-Secretary realise the complications in which this procedure could involve the organisation? Once a local authority has determined the last day on which debts can be paid, under present legislation a 10 per cent. penalty is automatically imposed on the ratepayer. It does not lie within the power of the local authority after that date has passed even to give relief of that 10 per cent. How would such an organisation stand if it refused to pay rates, if the date for the 10 per cent. penalty passed, if the 10 per cent. penalty were imposed, if subsequently the local authority sued the organisation, and if the court finally


determined that the organisation was a charitable one?

Mr. T. Fraser: I wish that the Lord Advocate would have another go at this matter. The Under-Secretary has reiterated that the Amendment proposes a subjective test for what would otherwise be an objective test. The Under-Secretary and the learned Lord Advocate have time and again made it abundantly clear that the relief of rates will be granted only when the local authority is satisfied that the body giving notice is a charity under paragraphs (a) or (b). Is not that true? Is not that what has been said by them both? That is what is said in this Amendment.
The Under-Secretary has said that if the Amendment were accepted, instead of the court considering whether or not the organisation came within either of those paragraphs it would have to consider some more abstruse matter about the satisfaction of the local authority, but both the hon. Gentleman and the Lord Advocate have said that, in any case, the local authority would not grant the relief in rates until it was satisfied on the score. Apparently, all that the Government object to is the writing of these words into the Bill.
If the Amendment were accepted, and if the local authority decided that an organisation did not come within either (a) or (b), and the applying organisation—or the organisation that did not apply at all but merely gave notice—went to court, the issue before the court would continue to be whether that was an organisation as defined in those two paragraphs.
The learned Lord Advocate shakes his head in a manner implying that he disagrees with me, but if the Amendment were accepted the subsection would read,
If notice in writing is given to the rating authority not later than the thirtieth day of June in any year"—
That relates to any lands or heritages. Then follow paragraphs (a) and (b), which means that those must be lands and heritages occupied by one of the organisations referred to in those paragraphs, and then there follow the words
…any rate leviable…shall not exceed one-half of the rate…

That is a specific, mandatory provision, without giving any indication to the local authority that it may ask any questions at all. Clearly, if an organisation believed that it came within the terms of either paragraph and the local authority decided otherwise, the organisation would have the right to ask the court to say that it came within those terms.
If our Amendment were accepted, those words would be the same. The subsection would then read:
If notice in writing is given to the rating authority not later than the thirtieth day of June in any year…after the rating authority are satisfied following reasonable inquiry that the lands and heritages are within the categories described in either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection and subject to the provisions of this section…
The words:
…subject to the provisions of this section…
remain. Therefore, if, in the view of the court, the organisation falls within the terms of (a) or (b) it would still qualify for relief. That would be the question before the court.
The Lord Advocate has, I think, assumed that the words after line 21 are to be taken out but they would remain, together with the words in the Amendment. In the circumstances, the court would still be considering a claim by the organisation that it was a charity as set out under those two paragraphs. The test would not be whether or not the local authority was satisfied about something. There would he no question of going to court to test that.
If the local authority. after any kind of inquiry, says, "We are satisfied that this is not an organisation," the court can say that the local authority is not satisfied. We therefore cannot have the test that the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary of State have been describing. We cannot have a court considering whether or not the local authority is satisfied. The local authority has already said, "We are not satisfied." The question before the court will be whether or not the organisation comes within the terms of those two paragraphs, and that position is safeguarded by the retention of the words
…subject to the provisions of this section…


In those circumstances, we ask the Secretary of State to accept an Amendment which merely gives to a local authority power in law to do what both the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary say any sensible local authority would do. The Amendment would give the sensible local authority statutory power to do what common sense would tell the local authority to do.
If that power is not given by Statute, the local authority initiating any kind of inquiry can be sent about its business by the organisation that will have been told in an Act of Parliament that all it has to do is to give notice in writing not later than 30th June. By Statute, therefore, the organisation can on that date give notice saying, "We come under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Section 4 of the Act of 1962, so please remit 50 per cent. of our rates"—and not even "please remit", but "You are obliged, therefore, to remit 50 per cent. of the rates that would otherwise be payable."
If the local authority then asks the organisation, "What makes you think you are a charity under either of those paragraphs?" the secretary of the organisation can say, "By what right do you ask that question? You have no right by Statute to bother me. I have complied with the Statute. I have given notice in writing not later than 30th June, and that is all I am required to do."
The Secretary of State, the learned Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary should know that there are many organisations which feel themselves to be entitled to this kind of relief, but believe that under the tests as they are being applied they will not so qualify. Lots of old-age pensioners' organisations have been told before now that they are not charities because they have never been given a certificate under the Income Tax Acts—because they have never had an income that made them liable for Income Tax. Nevertheless, they have provided little local halls for the convenience of old-age pensioners. Last year, those halls carried a valuation of £45. They now carry a valuation of £325, and the organisations concerned find that the amount of money they can collect at people's doors is quite insufficient to pay

the rates on the little halls. They are, therefore, having to dispose of the property.
It is no good saying to such an organisation, "You can go to court." If the town clerk or the county clerk were to write to the dear old lady who is secretary of an organisation asking what made her think she was entitled to relief under either of these paragraphs she would wonder what had gone wrong with the man. She would not know how to reply, and the organisation's finances would not permit it to get advice from a local solicitor. That is why we want this Measure to look sensible and require a local authority, when it gets an application of this kind, to make due and proper inquiry, and allow the councillors to decide whether it is reasonable to regard these organisations as charities. I believe that if the Government accepted the Amendment, far from excluding the deserving charities it would lead to deserving charities coming within the provisions of the Bill which would otherwise be left out.
6.0 p.m.
In all these circumstances, and since the Amendment provides only that the rating authority shall make reasonable inquiries before making a decision as to whether an organisation comes within paragraph (a) or (b) of the subsection, we should not assume what will be done but be as sensible as the Minister seems to think local authorities will be and add another two lines to the Bill making it a provision, by law, that they must do this.
I hope that the Secretary of State will himself speak on this matter, for the handling of the Bill by Ministers has left a lot to be desired. A lot of worthwhile Amendments have been proposed and, up to now, not one has been made to the Bill. I appeal to the Secretary of State to accept this most reasonable Amendment.

Miss Herbison: Surely we are to have a reply from one of the three Ministers present.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) raised a point which was dealt with in Committee at some length. He said that the Amendment would not cut down the right of the court to decide


in favour of a rightful charity which had been refused relief under the Bill. It would do so, to a large extent, and I can give the hon. Gentleman a simple example.
When the hon. Member for Hamilton claims expenses, rightly, as he does as an hon. Member, he has to satisfy his tax inspector that the expenses have been wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred. The relevant Act, however, does not say that the inspector must be satisfied. merely that the expenses are wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred. Accordingly, if the hon. Member disagrees with the inspector cutting off whatever the sum might be, the hon. Gentleman, considering them to be reasonable constituency expenses, can appeal to the courts and the special commissioners, who are not concerned with whether the inspector was satisfied or not, but whether, in fact, the expenses were wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred.
If the provision read:
After the inspector is satisfied that the expenses are wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred then relief will be granted",
the court would be limited to considering whether the inspector concerned had made a reasonable approach to the matter and had considered all reasonable factors. But they could not start from the beginning and decide the case on its complete merits.
Accordingly, the Amendment, in the same way, takes away a large part of the jurisdiction of the courts. The result

is that they would be considering not the merits as such, but whether the local authority had applied its mind reasonably. Instead of helping a charity the Amendment would defeat many charities because a local authority, having made due inquiry, might well be satisfied that the body was not a charity. That particular charity—perhaps a good one responsible for the halls the hon. Member for Hamilton mentioned—would not have a hope in hell—if I may use that expressionof ever succeeding in appealing in order to get justice. I therefore ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. T. Fraser: Does the Lord Advocate not agree that the words I used,
subject to the provisions of this Clause",
would safeguard the position entirely? If those words do not do that, what do they mean?

The Lord Advocate: There are two things. Under the Amendment there are two conditions which must be fulfilled before a charity can get rating relief. It must, first, have the satisfaction of the rating authority and, secondly, the provisions of the Bill. Failure of either one is fatal. If the charity falls down under (a)—the one in the Amendment—then it cannot succeed. It must fulfil both.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 233.

Division No. 52.]
AYES
[6.6 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hamilton, William (West File)


Ainsley, William
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hannan, William


Albu, Austen
Dempsey, James
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Allaun, Prank (Salford, E.)
Diamond, John
Hayman, F. H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dodds, Norman
Healey, Denis


Awbery, Stan
Driberg, Tom
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Beaney, Alan
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hilton, A. V.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fernyhough, E.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)


Bence, Cyril
Finch, Harold
Hoy, James H.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fitch, Alan
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Blackburn, F.
Fletcher, Eric
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Blyton, William
Forman, J. C.
Hunter, A. E.


Boardman, H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Boyden, James
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn)
Jeger, George


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gourlay, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Callaghan, James
Grey, Charles
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Cliffe, Michael
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Kelley, Richard


Collick, Percy
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Kenyon, Clifford


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gunter, Ray
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Cronin, John
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
King, Dr. Horace




Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Owen, Will
Stonehouse, John


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Parker, John
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke. on-Trent. C.)


Lipton, Marcus
Pavitt, Laurence
Symonds, J. B.


Loughlin, Charles
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


McCann, John
Pentland, Norman
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


McInnes, James
Prentice, R. E.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Randall, Harry
Thornton, Ernest


Mackie, John (Enfied, East)
Reid, William
Timmons, John


MacMillan, Malcolm (western Isles)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wainwright, Edwin


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Warbey, William


Manuel, A. C.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Watkins, Tudor


Mapp, Charles
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mason, Roy
Ross, William
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mellish, R. J.
Short, Edward
Wilkins, W. A.


Mendelson, J. J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Millan, Bruce
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Milne, Edward
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mitchison, G. R.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Monslow, Walter
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Woof, Robert


Neat, Harold
Sorensen, R. W.
Zilliacus, K.


Nod-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Spriggs, Leslie



Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Steele, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Redhead.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Eden, John
Kershaw, Anthony


Aitken, W. T.
Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy


Allason, James
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lagden, Godfrey


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Farr, John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Atkins, Humphrey
Fell, Anthony
Leburn, Gilmour


Barlow, Sir John
Finlay, Graeme
Legge-Bourke. Sir Harry


Batsford, Brian
Fisher, Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Lilley, F. J. P.


Bell, Ronald
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Berkeley, Humphry
Gammans, Lady
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bidgood, John C.
Gardner, Edward
Longbottom, Charles


Biffen, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Longden, Gilbert


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Sir John
Loveys, Walter H.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Godber, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bishop, F. P.
Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Goodhew, Victor
McLaren, Martin


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gower, Raymond
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Box, Donald
Gresham Cooke, R.
McMaster, Stanley R.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Maddan, Martin


Braine, Bernard
Gurden, Harold
Maginnis, John E.


Brewis, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Sir John


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marshall, Douglas


Bryan, Paul
Harvey, Sir Arthur vere(Macclesf'd)
Marten, Neil


Buck, Antony
Hastings, Stephen
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Bullard, Denys
Hay, John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hendry, Forbes
Mawby, Ray


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Mills, Stratton


Cary, Sir Robert
Hobson, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Channon, H. P. G.
Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Gerald


Chataway, Christopher
Hollingworth, John
Neave, Airey


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holt, Arthur
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hopkins, Alan
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Collard, Richard
Hornby, R. P.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Cooke, Robert
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cooper, A. E.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Corfield, F. V.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Partridge, E.


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Coulson, Michael
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peel, John


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jackson, John
Percival, Ian


Craddook, Sir Beresford
James, David
Peyton, John


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Curran, Charles
Jennings, J. C.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pitman, sir James


de Ferranti, Basil
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pott, Percivall


Drayson, G. B.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Prior, J. M. L.


du Cann, Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Duncan, Sir James
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Pym, Francis


Duthie, Sir William
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ramsden, James







Rawlinson, Peter
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Redmayne, Rt- Hon. Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Walder, David


Rees-Davies, w. R.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Walker, Peter


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Taylor, Frank(M'ch'ster, Moss Side)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Rippon, Geoffrey
Temple, John M.
Wall, Patrick


Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Ward, Dame Irene


Roots, William
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Webster, David


Russell, Ronald
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Whitelaw, William


Seymour, Leslie
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Sharpies, Richard
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Shaw, M.
Thorpe, Jeremy
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Wise, A. R.


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Turner, Colin
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Smithers, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Woollam, John


Spearman, Sir Alexander
van Straubenzee, W. R,
Worsley, Marcus


Speir, Rupert
Vane, W. M. F.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John



Stodart, J. A.
Vickers, Miss Joan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wade, Donald
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


Storey, Sir Samuel
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Mr. Gordon Campbell.

Second Schedule.—(CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

6.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 10, line 8, at the end to insert:

The Recreational Charities Act, 1958

5. In section six of the Recreational Charities Act, 1958 (which relates to the application of that Act to Scotland). at the end of subsection (2), there shall be added the words "or, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, of the Local Government (Financial Provisions etc.) (Scotland) Act, 1962".

I hope to be a little more conciliatory on this occasion than I was about ten minutes ago. This Amendment arises out of a point made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) during the Committee stage. It relates particularly to miners' welfare trusts which, because of doubts were made charitable in the Recreational Charities Act, 1958.

The hon. Gentleman doubted whether these charities would, apart from having Income Tax relief under the 1958 Act, have derating relief under this Bill. I said then that I was quite satisfied that they would. He then made certain representations to me, and I spoke to him about them. I was a little "frosty" when I first met him, but, like the climate, I have since thawed, and that is the reason why this Amendment has been tabled.

The hon. Gentleman's point, Which was put by some eminent gentlemen whom he consulted, was that in the circumstances there should be a linking between Clause 4 (10) of the Bill and the Recreational Charities Act, 1958. Subsection 10, as the hon. Gentleman remembers, was designed in the way it was drafted to give lawyers and other

people dealing with the Bill the meaning of "charity" within the Income Tax Acts as a sort of yardstick, but there was no particular reference to the 1958 Act. I think that is what gave him cause for worry.

The Amendment writes into the Bill and into the 1958 Act a straight cross-link saying that, in effect, the 1958 Act charities, including the Section 2 charities which are the miners' welfare trust charities, shall be regarded as charities for the purposes of the Bill. I hope that this meets the hon. Gentleman's point. I apologise for the slight delay in putting down the Amendment, for which I take full responsibility.

Mr. T. Fraser: I thank the Lord Advocate for the Amendment. This is a matter which I raised in Committee He will recall that I tried to deal with it then, but did not manage to draft an Amendment which gained the approval of the Chair and had, therefore, to raise it within the context of the Bill generally. I gathered from my conversations with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he, too, found it somewhat difficult to get an appropriate Amendment drafted for inclusion in the Bill.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, I have been in touch with the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation about this matter for a considerable time. Following the Committee stage, I had further consultations with the officers of the organisation, whose legal advisers were not happy with the situation as it was left at the end of the Committee stage. I have reason to believe, however, that they are very happy about this Amendment. In any case,


I feel satisfied that it does what they have always wanted to have done. Therefore, I will do no more than say "Thank you" to the Lord Advocate.

Amendment agreed to.

6.21 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a fairly short Bill which, as hon. Members appreciate, arose largely out of revaluation. As I said on Second Reading, I cannot pretend that it is a major Measure, but it contains one provision of particular interest in Clauses 4 and 5, which relieve charitable organisations of one-half of their liability for rates. During the Committee stage there was, I think it fair to say, a measure of agreement about the general principle of this provision.
One point which was raised and with which I should like to deal is that the present arrangements for the apportionment of grants and joint expenditure would operate to the disadvantage of local authorities in whose areas a more than average amount of property was eligible for the relief to the extent that part of the authority's rateable value, a factor in determining the apportionment, would become non-effective. For technical reasons, we were not able to accept an Amendment tabled to meet this point. However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave an undertaking in Committee which, I hope, will meet it.
It was that in the review of the Exchequer Equalisation Grant, which is about to take place, and which must be given effect by legislation early in the 1962–63 Session, local authorities will be asked to consider whether apportionment should be based on effective rateable value with retrospective effect from the year 1962–63, which is the first year when the rating relief to charities will operate if the Bill is passed. I hope that that meets the point raised in Committee. It is certainly what we shall do.
I do not think that I should go over what has been discussed this afternoon. The matter has been fully explored and I feel that, with all respect to the arguments which have been presented, the Bill is about right as it stands.
There is only one more point that I wish to make, because the remaining provisions in the Bill are somewhat technical. Clause 1 provides for the revision of the apportionments of expenditure and general grant among local authorities for the current financial year in accordance with revised estimates of rateable value for the year to be supplied by 15th March. Such a revision is necessary in fairness to all concerned, and it is the wish of local authorities that it should be given effect to by adjusting the 1962–63 payments.
The 15th March is the latest date for the supply of the estimates which will make this possible. The estimates supplied at 15th March should be fairly reliable, but if they prove to be far out a further adjustment could be given effect to in 1963–64, and this can be provided for when the next Bill comes along. That is the only point that I can usefully contribute at this stage.
I hope that the House will give a Third Reading to this small but useful Bill.

Mr. McInnes: Will the Secretary of State indicate to local authorities his intention to incorporate the adjustment in the Bill in 1963–64 when he meets them?

Mr. Maclay: That follows from what I have said in my remarks, which will be available for local authorities to read.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: Like the Secretary of State, I do not feel that this is a momentous Bill. I wondered where it should be placed. Therefore, I looked up the record, because I had not the privilege of being present when it was discussed on Second Reading. I thought that I ought to look for some independent authority, someone who could bring a judicial mind to bear on it and who could give us an apt description of what the Bill was about.
I therefore turned to what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) to find out what the Bill was about. He said:
For a long time many of us in the House and outside have been looking forward with great expectation to a local authority Bill for Scotland. There was a great deal of excitement when it was announced that it would be produced under this short title, but when we


saw the Bill, and once we had got through the obscurity of the language, we found that it was puny and pusillanimous. I do not say that it is putrid, because that would imply that at one time it had some life, whereas this Bill never had any life and never will have. The Secretary of State suggested that there was a policy in the Bill, but although I spent the greater part of the night—we had an all-night sitting—studying the Bill, I found very little sign of policy. What I found was a highly technical Bill, if hon. Members choose to call it so, obviously invented by the dotters of ' i's ' and crossers of t's ' at St. Andrew's House, or somewhere like that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 16th November, 1961; c. 18.]
I suppose that the words "or somewhere like that" refer to Dover House. Those are the two branches of the "firm" which presented the Bill. We can, therefore, see why the Bill has not aroused a great furore.
Today, we have been present on a great occasion. An Amendment has been accepted. That is the only unusual thing which has taken place during consideration of this Bill. What we have confronting us tonight is a Bill which was so aptly described by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West when it was debated on Second Reading.
However, the Bill does one thing which arouses some interest. It concerns the provision, which was the subject of Amendment this afternoon, to relieve all charitable organisations of 50 per cent. of their rates. The Secretary of State has always told us that the one thing that frightened local authorities about a Socialist Government was, so it was said, that they were always imposing things on them. But a Socialist Government never said to them, "Whether you like it or not, you have to give all these organisations 50 per cent. rating relief". While, on the whole, it may work out reasonably well, it has, rightly, given some of my hon. Friends cause for anxiety as to who is to get this 50 per cent.
We can imagine the feelings about this provision in the City of Edinburgh where the local authority is imposing over and above the rent a poll tax of 5s. per head on every occupant of the house, including the children of the occupants of the house, who have a gross income of £4 a week. These people will want to know why they have to pay this tax while institutions like Fettes College will be relieved of 50 per cent.

of their rates. I am sure that the Secretary of State will not be surprised to hear that these people want an answer to this point. I am also sure that if they depend on the Secretary of State for an answer to that point they will not get one.
One other thing which the Bill does—I do not know whether this is an indication of the march of progress—is this. One of the enactments repealed by it is the Sunday and Ragged Schools (Exemption from Rating) Act, 1869. I do not know whether Scottish legislation is improved by taking out the ragged schools and putting in Gordonstoun and Fettes College. I do not know whether this is the great march of progress of the Tory Party. Scotland will require an explanation of this step. People always find it difficult to regard these large fee-paying schools—the fees are fairly substantial, certainly not less than £500 a year, I am told—as charitable organisations. Edinburgh people will find it very difficult to understand why relief from rates should be granted to Fettes College while old-age pensioners and their families are compelled to pay a substantially higher rent by the Tory council there. This Bill, therefore, will not play a great part in the welfare of local government in Scotland.
We were all disappointed, like the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, that we did not get a much more substantial Bill to deal with the problems confronting Scotland. We would have preferred that the Secretary of State had taken the opportunity of putting right the deficiencies under the general grant procedure, to give the opportunity to the local authorities to meet their educational commitments which have been foisted upon them by the Government. Surely, that would have been a step worth taking, and well worth while.
Like the Secretary of State, I cannot regard the Bill with enthusiasm, and I am certain that there is no hon. Member from Scotland who can. We can only hope and trust—and perhaps this is asking too much—that when the Secretary of State announces the next one, at least it will be a Bill worthy of the occasion and of Scotland.

6.33 p.m.

Sir Myer Galpern: The Secretary of State has stated that he does not regard this as a major


Bill. I have a very definite view on Clause 4. Despite the assurances given by the learned Lord Advocate, I believe that it will lead to considerable litigation in the Scottish courts.
While we have heard criticism of public schools, which will benefit unnecessarily, there are, on the other hand, many genuine charitable organisations which will suffer immeasurably in a financial way. I propose to give one example of how Clause 4 will operate in respect of one Charitable organisation. There is an organisation in Scotland known as the Scottish Veterans' Garden City Association. I believe that it has already been in correspondence with the Secretary of State about the position in which it will find itself when the Bill becomes an Act.
Here is a body which is recognised under the definition laid down in the Bill as qualifying for relief, and recognised as a charitable organisation under the Income Tax Acts. Since 1915, when it was founded, it has maintained itself, by purely voluntary efforts, so as to provide and maintain cottages for disabled ex-Service men and Merchant Navy men. In every case, the tenants of the houses are in receipt of from 60 per cent. to 100 per cent. disablement pensions. On looking into the position created by the Bill, the Association will find that the 630 houses which it has in Scotland appear not to qualify for the 50 per cent. mandatory relief which Clause 4 purports to award them.
This is not the only organisation which will find itself in this position and in financial difficulties. There are also the Earl Haig's Cottages and The Thistle Foundation, in Scotland, which is on all fours with the one I have mentioned, and which, on every test that one cares to apply, comes definitely within the ambit of charitable organisations. Yet, because of the fact that it provides houses for disabled people in respect of which it receives a very nominal rent—so that the people will not feel that they are living on charity, but merely to protect and bolster the pride of the tenants of these houses—because of that situation, which brings in a very small sum to this organisation, the bulk of its work will not qualify for the mandatory relief.
The Secretary of State has already said that in a reply which he has sent to the

Association, regretting that he could do nothing at all in the Bill to ameliorate, improve or alleviate its position. Surely, if there is to be a mandatory relief of 50 per cent. to charitable organisations, some method could be devised to incorporate this organisation and quite a number of other organisations which will have to face the same difficulty. This Association, in the Glasgow area alone, will have to face a rate increase of no less than £2,250, while its offices in Edinburgh will, without any question, qualify for the 50 per cent. mandatory relief. The Association will receive no relief whatever in respect of this £2,250 purely for the Glasgow area. It has 630 houses spread over Scotland, it is building another 16 in Glasgow and has quite a substantial programme of house building lined up for the future.
Clause 4, which will prevent this organisation receiving the relief to which it is undoubtedly entitled, ought to be scrapped. I appeal to the Secretary of State that, when this Bill goes to another place, he should introduce an Amendment to ensure that organisations such as those I have mentioned, and those which I have not, because there are many others, will not be penalised because of the situation that will have arisen under the Bill. Their difficulty is increased by the fact that before the new Rating Act the assessors treated them very generously indeed. They recognised that they were doing charitable work, and in that respect did not rate them in the same way as they rated ordinary houses.
Having had that low rating in those generous days, they often find that their assessments are now doubled, compared to what they had earlier. Yet it seems that the Secretary of State does not feel that he can do anything to help people in that category. In cases of this kind. and in view of the facts I have given, which I hope he will agree are wholly correct, because I think the Secretary of State has seen correspondence from this body, I appeal to him to do whatever he possibly can. I make a wholehearted appeal to him to see that by the time the Bill has gone through another place it should contain an Amendment to ensure that these very worth-while organisations will not be placed in financial difficulties.
That is what is likely to happen, or, alternatively, they will curtail their activities at a time when it is essential that they should expand and develop the very necessary functions for which they were originally set up. Some encouragement should be given to these voluntary bodies throughout Scotland which are anxious to make provision for those people for whom no other organisation provides. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do whatever he can to help them to obtain the mandatory relief to which it seems they are entitled, not merely for the office but for the whole of the charitable work which they carry out.
I want to make reference to another point. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) referred to the learned Lord Advocate's speech during the Committee stage. He said a very simple test would be, "Do you or do you not qualify under the Income Tax charity definition?" I have given an example of a case in which the immediate answer was "Yes, we qualify," but, when we start breaking down the organisation we find that the bulk of its charitable work will not qualify. I therefore hope that the Secretary of State will try to do something to meet the financial position of these organisations.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. McInnes: I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland recognises that this Measure has met with the complete hostility of local authorities in Scotland, He has had the experience of meeting them and discussing the implications of the Bill with them and they have left him in no doubt where they stand about it.
It is asserted that the introduction of mandatory relief to charitable organisations was brought about largely as a result of the parsimonious disposition of local authorities when they possessed discretionary powers to give such relief. Whilst it may be true that certain local authorities adopted a parsimonious attitude in exercising the discretionary powers vested in them, I think that they did so because it was generally recognised in those days that the local assessors gave a very sympathetic valuation to properties occupied by charitable organisations.
It was in the knowledge of this sympathetic valuation that the local authorities were compelled to exercise greater care and discretion in the extent of the relief they gave to these organisations. The Secretary of State is fully aware of the hostility of local authorities and, inevitably, he is bound to be conscious of the hostility of hon. Members on this side of the House.
There are many things which we would have desired to have incorporated in the Bill. I am grossly dissatisfied with the provisions of Clause 4. I have already stated that it is a case of class legislation and I regret to have to use that phrase. I can only say to the Secretary of State that he cannot feel happy about the Bill. He cannot take any credit for introducing such a mean and "lousy" little Measure as this.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to address his attention to Clause 7 and to a promise which he gave on 21st November in reply to part of a speech which I made during the debate on the principle of the Bill. It was in connection with the decentralisation of the sittings of the valuation appeal committees. I have given the Under-Secretary notice of this and I do not think that I am taking him by surprise. Anyway, he has had since 21st November to do something about it. He said on that occasion that he would like to look into the point. I wonder whether he has had the opportunity to refer back to it and, if so, whether he will say now what action, if any, has been taken or what action is possible.
As I see it, if the present situation continues and the present procedures are followed, the relevant Section of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, will not be very effective. I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he claims that the right of the valuation appeal committees to appoint a deputy-secretary with the approval of the sheriff may help to take some of the pressure from an appeal committee, but will it go any way whatever to improve the position of the appellants who appear before it? It is virtually the whole function of these appeal committees to assist in the operation of the 1956 Act and to do justice


to the appellants who appear before them to appeal against the assessor's figures. If the appeal committees are not able or willing to see to it that appellants appearing before them have proper and full justice done to them, they are, in a sense, if not frustrating the intention of Parliament and the Act, certainly not facilitating the operation of the Measure.
Has the Under-Secretary anything further to say about the matters raised then and his promise to look further into them? If not, I fear that this sort of situation will continue. The pressure on the actual work of the secretary of the appeal committee may be eased by the appointment of a deputy-secretary, but it still seems to remain entirely with the chairman of the appeal committee to decide the matters of which I complained in my speech on the principle of the Bill.
I think that the Under-Secretary had it in mind to take immediate short-term action to relieve the hardship imposed on appellants who have to travel long distances, particularly in the island areas, to present their appeals. I hope that something has happened since then. In any event, I should like to know how the 1956 Act will operate now in relief of that hardship and to what extent the appointment of deputy-secretaries will enable there to be a decentralisation of the sittings of appeal committees, which will ensure that the services of these committees will go to the people in the same way as do the services of the Land Court in respect of valuation.
Is it the Minister's intention and the purpose of the Act to make these new arrangements in order that there shall be further decentralisation of the sittings? If not, we shall be leaving serious hardship unrelieved. In my constituency the experience of the operation of the Act, which I cannot see being greatly changed by the effect of Clause 7, is that people have to travel very long distances by very expensive and irregular transport to have their appeals heard at so-called administrative centres. By "administrative centres" is meant places where appeals have always been heard or where licensing courts and other bodies have always traditionally sat.
Transport has certainly improved, but it is certainly not cheaper, and in the Western Isles it has not improved as much as in most other places. On the last occasion I spoke on this subject I gave an example of appeals being heard in the Western Isles at Lochmaddy, where it was only possible for one person out of 100 from Harris to reach the place where half the appeal committee was sitting. Half the committee, under Lord Macdonald, was sitting and waiting to hear cases while the other half of the committee was airborne and unable to land because of bad weather. It was the misfortune of the committee, as well as that of the appellants, that as a result they were kept several days away from their homes.
The Secretary of State is sympathetic on this point, I am sure. Any person with a grain of common sense believes that it is right that appeals should be heard and that the committees should be equipped to hear appeals as close to the people concerned as possible.
In other words, instead of inconveniencing hundreds of people by making them travel over long distances at great expense, having to be away from their work and homes for several days, it would be far better for the committees to endure a little more discomfort by going out to the people in a larger number of centres and so decentralising their procedure for hearing appeals. The Government have facilitated by Clause 7 the appointment of deputy-secretaries to the appeals committees, which we welcome. That part of the Bill could be very useful, however objectionable it might be considered as a whole by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and the rest of us. Under Clause 7 something could be 1d one.
We want an assurance that it is the intention of the Government that the new equipment and the additional secretarial help should be used to bring justice to the people and not still compel them to travel long distances at great expense which, in most cases, means that any possible reduction of the assessment that may be granted is just not worth it. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to say something about that point.
So far, we have addressed this question without success to Lord Macdonald and


other appeal committee members, but they have not only failed to see the point of the representations made by the crofters, the Crofters' Union and myself at their request as a Member of Parliament, but have taken up a very dubious attitude, standing on their dignity. By refusing to decentralise, they are losing far more dignity than if they went out to the people and met them in their village halls and schools. The Land Court loses no dignity by going out to the people and bringing justice to them at the lowest possible expense.
This situation, as the Secretary of State knows, was created by an Act of Parliament for which the Government were responsible. It is a new experience for crofters in the area to be assessed on their homes instead of on home and croft as a single subject of taxation. Since it is a new situation, it is not asking, too much that valuation appeal committees, with the greater secretarial assistance and the new equipment available to them, should be urged in every way possible—if necessary, by further legislation—to go out to the people to administer the Act in accordance with the intention of this House and of the then Secretary of State when the Act was introduced.
The committees can sit in as many places as they like—that is discretionary. They are obliged to sit at a convenient centre in a town, but can sit wherever they like if they wish to. If they want to stand on their dignity, I know that the Secretary of State can tell them that they must sit in a certain place, but the committees should have the common sense to sit where it is convenient for the people whose interests they are representing. The Secretary of State should encourage the new committees to be more democratic and to be less pompous.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Ross: We cannot, on Third Reading, take exception to anything in the Bill. We can only praise or blame those matters in the Bill that we think merit praise or blame respectively. I think that it was the Secretary of State who said that the Bill was made necessary by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956. It has been made necessary because the tasks set in that Act and the fulfilment of rights in relation to appeals have not yet been completed. The local authorities were left with

valuation registers quite inexact and on which important calculations had to be made. So it was absolutely essential that we had to have something like Clause 1.
The Government have included other matters in the Bill, but the one that has raised most controversy has been Clause 4. I am not entirely satisfied that the Government have done the right thing in that Clause. It may well be that they should have taken counsel with the local authorities much more fully than they did. The origin of Clause 4 is the Pritchard Committee's Report so far as it concerned England and Wales and the legislation which followed that Report. The Secretary of State decided that he would apply it to Scotland—although different considerations apply there—after only one meeting with the Scottish local authorities, when they said, in no uncertain fashion, that they did not like the proposal.
Clause 4 takes away from local authorities powers which they had to grant exemption from or reduction of rates to certain organisations. It now makes it mandatory on them to reduce or limit the rates leviable on these organisations to 50 per cent. Indeed, if the local authorities wish to reduce such rates further, they are at liberty to do so. I gather that they can give 100 per cent. exemption if they see fit, but they must give 50 per cent. reduction as the minimum.
This means that institutions that have hitherto had to pay full rates will now, without any quibbling, get off with 50 per cent. But when many local authorities and ratepayers discover that some charitable organisations are competing with them, eyebrows may be raised. Some organisations considered as charities run licensed premises for the benefit of members. There may be a club making considerable profits. Despite that, such organisations will get a rate reduction of 50 per cent.
Under the same Clause, schools which are recognised as being schools for the well-off, which tend to draw their scholars from well-off people, are now to have a mandatory 50 per cent. reduction, whereas under Clause 5, the existing exemption which applies to schools under Section 142 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946—


special schools and orphanages—will gradually be whittled away.
I want to be right about this, and perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong. I understand that Clause 5 (2) means that there will be full exemption in 196–63, but that, in the four succeeding years the rates will be one-fifth, two-fifths, three-fifths and four-fifths until the full rate is reached for special schools and orphanages. That is done within legislation which gives other schools a 50 per cent. mandatory reduction. That does not strike me as just. We could have made a better job of it. Most people in Scotland will feel the same way.
I can understand that we want to have some uniformity of exemption from rates throughout the country. We sometimes get startling decisions from local authorities. Ayr Town Council, my own local authority, had an application from the Scottish Youth Hostels Association, for a reduction of rates in respect of the Craigweil hostel, a new youth hostel. There was a refusal to reduce those rates although under the new assessment they were very high. Next to that youth hostel is a private school which is in exactly the same type of house, Wellington School. That school has recently expanded and now owns another two or three substantial properties in the town for boarding pupils. Under the Bill, the school will pay only 50 per cent. rates—if it is a charitable organisation. It is not charitable in the emotional connotation of the word although it may be within Income Tax law. It is possible that the Ayr Town Council will be in for a shock if it discovers that the Scottish Youth Hostels Association itself is a charity.
Some local authorities will find quite a burden resulting from these provisions, because private schools and the headquarters of certain charities tend to be grouped within certain areas. There are not many private schools in Kilmarnock, but there are in seaside resorts, or Edinburgh, or similar places. The fact that a local authority will statutorily have to remit a certain proportion of its rates will obviously affect its attitude towards the administration of other provisions in Clause 4.
Clause 4 (5) gives an authority the right within its discretion to make remissions in respect of lands and heritages occupied for religious, philanthropic, educational, social welfare, scientific, literary or fine arts purposes and includes
lands and heritages occupied for the purposes of a club, society or other organisation not established or conducted for profit, and which are wholly or mainly used for purposes of recreation.
The fact that the local authority has to remit rates in respect of certain institutions will harden its attitude towards those rates still within its discretion. If the rates of certain people are remitted, the burden must be carried by others. Local authorities may feel that because they are compelled by Statute to give away so much, they cannot give away as much as they might otherwise do in those areas within their discretion.
Many of the institutions coming within Clause 4 (5) are very worthy, but they will be equally hit by the new valuation. I am the president of the Ayrshire and Dumfriesshire Cycling Association, whose members are not so badly harried as they are in England where chief constables are sometimes not very helpful about mass starts. These are clubs for working lads for young fellows who are very keen on open air exercise. They can be seen on a Sunday morning or on any holiday on the roads.
In Kilmarnock there is a club which took over an old house and did it up. It was given a reasonable assessment, until the new valuation knocked it completely outwith the reach of the pockets of its members. Such clubs are for recreation, but they get no mandatory reduction, and I wonder Whether they would get any reduction even under subsection (5).
Such an organisation—this is the Wallacehill Cycling Association—is far more deserving than Gordonstoun. It has no income and all the lads have is outlay—providing their bicycles, equipment, and all the rest of it. Has the Under-Secretary considered whether the mandatory reductions will affect the discretionary reductions? There is no doubt that some authorities will feel that, having had so much taken from them in some respects, they cannot afford to give away more in others.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is making an excellent case. I have been attending a Standing Committee and have missed some of the debate. Have we had any enlightenment about whether the investment capital of a charitable institution, such as a school, is to be ascertained? If such an institution has £½ million invested, it is a very rich organisation, but I presume that it will still get the mandatory relief.

Mr. Ross: That is something which the Under-Secretary can answer, but I can assure my hon. Friend that private schools will get public assistance without a means test.
Subject to those criticisms, these are valuable and necessary provisions. I regret that the Secretary of State should have felt impelled in this Bill to have included legislation along the lines of the recommendations of the Pritchard Committee, without giving the Scots and Scottish local authorities an opportunity to consider them. This is a matter of considerable complexity, but I am riot satisfied that the provisions about exemptions and remissions are as good as they might have been if we had had more time to consider them.

7.8 p.m.

Miss Herbison: I begin my short speech by quoting what the Under-Secretary said when winding up the debate on Second Reading:
We have had a rather odd debate. Nobody has been actually opposed to the Bill, but nobody has been very pleased with what is in it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 21st November, 1961; c. 81.]
How right he was! During Second Reading not a single member of the Scottish Grand Committee was in full support of the Bill. Hon. Members opposite did little or no work in Committee or on Report, and we have now reached Third Reading finding that not one of them has attempted to say a word about a Bill which they did not like very much. It is no wonder that the Scottish Press speaks of them as the silent men of Westminster.

Mr. T. Fraser: The silent knights.

Miss Herbison: Perhaps that is a better description. To make clear their point of view that they do not like the

Bill very much and then do nothing whatever either to improve it or, indeed, to give us support when we were trying to improve it was very bad indeed. Just as the Government Front Bench deserves great criticism about the Bill, the back bench Members opposite deserve even greater criticism for their lack of interest and lack of effort.
According to the Under-Secretary it was an odd debate. What we have had are odd results, or lack or results. The Bill affects every local authority in Scotland. It is a Bill in which the Secretary of State, because it was necessary for him to put in Clause 1 and perhaps other Clauses, decided to insert Clauses 4 and 5. He could not wait until the larger Measure, which we were hearing about at all stages in Committee, could be brought forward.
In Clauses 4 and 5, the Secretary of State is putting certain mandatory duties on local authorities. Some of these I accept. I said so on Second Reading and I say so again. We attempted, both in Committee and on Report today, to try to get at least a little safeguard for the local authorities. One would have thought that the Secretary of State would at least have tried to show the local authorities that he would meet them in some way. But no. the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary, the Lord Advocate—every single one of them—said, "This is Clause 4 and it is going to remain Clause 4 no matter what every single local authority in Scotland feels about it".
There are many charitable oranisations that I want to help and I am glad that this provision in the Bill will help them. Many of them do excellent work. I want them to get that help. We tried in Committee to take out the provision in Clause 4 for so-called charitable organisations which we did not consider needed help. Again the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary was unable to meet us. Some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House have shown clearly, and at times in very vivid language, how strongly they feel about the provision in Clause 4 as it will be applied to the so-called public schools. I shall follow up that point later.
We attempted, on Second Reading and later, to show to the Government that


particularly where there were a great number of those charitable organisations—Edinburgh claimed to have a great number of them, not only schools but other charitable organisations—the local authorities would suffer considerably because, although the full rateable value appeared on the roll, they would get only half of it. The Under-Secretary when trying to meet this point said:
…it is by making an adjustment in the grant formula so as to base it on the effective rateable valuation of each area after allowance for exemptions…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 21st November, 1961; c. 86.]
and that this would be considered by the Working Party. It is not just Edinburgh and Musselburgh and the area covered by Gordonstoun that are to suffer loss of rates through these schools being there.
If this is carried out, and it must be carried out because of other charitable organisations, and there is loss of rateable value, it means that every single ratepayer in Scotland will eventually, through the rates, subsidise charitable organisations such as Fettes, Loretto, Gordonstoun and the rest. I think that is shocking. At a time when in my own county there are children in a senior secondary school being educated in a building that has to be seen to be believed, in a year when the Secretary of State says to Lanarkshire, "You cannot have even 50 per cent. of the money that is needed for a new school building programme", this same Government, in this miserable Measure, says to every ratepayer in Lanarkshire and to every ratepayer in Scotland, "You are going to subsidise the education of those children who go to these schools". That is very wrong indeed.
I am reminded by an hon. Friend that this applies not to the fee-paying schools in Glasgow under the education authority or the fee-paying schools under any education authority, but merely to these ones. The majority of these schools do not even conform to the Scottish system of education. It seems to us wrong that the Secretary of State and the Government have resisted every attempt of hon. Members on this side of the House to ensure that this would not obtain in respect of these charitable schools.
It may be that from the debate today the people in Scotland will realise what Clause 4 is doing so far as it concerns the charitable schools. I think that the majority of people would want this mandatory relief for all the other charities that are envisaged, but even the Tory-controlled St. Andrews has made the strongest protest against this mandatory relief for the two charitable schools in the area. It seems to me that the Secretary of State has really neglected his duties considerably by, first of all, paying not attention to the strong opposition of these responsible local authorities in Scotland and, secondly, through all the stages of the Bill, making no attempt whatever either to accept reasonable Amendments which we have put down or at least to put something in their place which would have helped local authorities to feel that he was not just riding roughshod over them.
I hope that local authorities in Scotland will remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland visited St. Andrew's House and that, according to the Scottish Press, a fresh wind would blow through St. Andrew's House. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that Conservative freedom was a wonderful thing. There is no Conservative or any other kind of freedom in this Bill for local authorities. I hope that the Scottish people will take note of the Bill, and next time will give us not merely a majority but an even bigger one.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) spoke about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland riding roughshod over Scotland. But certainly in her speech tonight she has been pretty rough, perhaps rather more so than the Bill merits. She criticised my hon. Friends for their conduct during the Committee stage of the Bill. I suppose that it all depends on one's view of these matters. I found my hon. Friend's silence both eloquent and moving. I cannot say that I always find that with the superfluity of speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly when they are delivered in loud voices.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that he was not on the


Committee. He raised tonight one or two Committee points, and I will try quickly to answer them before coming to the main matters of principle dealt with by most of the other speakers. The hon. Gentleman asked whether a charitable organisation which ran licensed premises would get relief. The answer is that it will be ruled out at once if it is a profit-making organisation; but if it is non-profit-making it might qualify, depending on the circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to Wellington School in Ayr. Again I think that the position depends on whether the school is conducted for private profit or not, and I am afraid that at the moment I am not briefed on that paint. With regard to Clause 5, the hon. Gentleman asked why special schools had to pay the full rates under the Bill. In fact, I think that the hon. Gentleman now realises that they will not have to pay full rates. They will be brought up to the 50 per cent. exemption which applies under Clause 5.
We seem to be talking practically all the time about schools. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who opened the discussion in a pleasant and humorous manner, which I think we all appreciated, referred to the hardship which he thought would be caused in Edinburgh and places like that through the large relief granted to schools. But, of course, it is not always a disadvantage to a local authority to have a school in its midst. The fact that Loretto School is in Midlothian County means that this County gets a grant of £3,600 which it would not otherwise receive from my right hon. Friend.

Miss Herbison: What for?

Mr. Galbraith: That question shows the extent to which the hon. Lady listened to what I said in Committee. I elaborated the point at considerable length then, and I did not want to have to do the same thing again tonight.
I do not think that we will get anywhere if we start distinguishing between one charity and another—because that is what the suggestions of hon. Members amount to—according to whether we think that each is a more or less deserving charity. We have to look at the matter in a broad sweep. Although

I have to listen to hon. Gentlemen opposite, they quite clearly did not listen to me when I tried to put this point of view to them.
I said in Committee that in the main no hardship would be imposed on local authorities through having these schools in their midst. I tried to show that even today most of these schools continue what was their primary original purpose of helping to educate some of those children who cannot afford to pay the full fees themselves. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite, for a variety of reasons which I do not wish to go into, do not like these schools, I ask them, as I have done on many occasions, to recognise that these schools are charities and are therefore worthy of help. Once we start discriminating between one charity and another—and that is what hon. Gentlemen are asking us to do—we get into a dangerous position with invidious and unreliable grounds for our choice.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill discriminates between charities? It provides for rating relief to be given to those charities which have a certificate as a charity under the Income Tax Acts and therefore applies only to those charities which have had occasion to get this relief from Income Tax. Many genuine charities do not have assets on which to pay tax.

Mr. Galbraith: In the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate I should not like to be categorical. I understand, however, that our definition of charity is a very wide one, and that anything that does not fall within it is, ipso facto, not a charity.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) raised a point with which I have considerable sympathy. I take it that the association to which he referred has already satisfied itself, presumably on legal advice, that the cottages it maintains will not be eligible for mandatory rating relief under Clause 4. If that is so, it may be because the individual tenants who pay a small rental, and not the association itself, are the occupiers for rating purposes. That, I think, is probably the position. I think that the association could, however, probably help itself by


modifying the terms on which the cottages are occupied. The provisions for discretionary relief in Clause 5 cover a somewhat wider range of property, and the cottages might be held to fall within those provisions. I hope the hon. Gentleman will find that the local authority will discharge its discretion in the way he wants it to.
The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), who has explained to me why he cannot be here now, raised today again a point which he raised on Second Reading. He also asked about the appointment of a deputy secretary under Clause 7, but that will not meet the point in which he is interested. As to his worry about the places where the appeal committee may sit, I undertook in Committee to look into the matter, and we are now considering the position with a view to possible future legislation. I cannot go further than that now, but I am sure that the hon. Member will understand the position.

Mr. Hoy: My hon. Friend raised the point that appeals might take place next month. He was hoping that some provision would be made to make it possible for the people in the Western Isles to attend without the tremendously heavy costs which will be involved in doing so.

Mr. Galbraith: I realise the point that the hon. Gentleman was trying to make, but, as he knows, my right hon. Friend has no power to intervene in this matter.
I may have misunderstood the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), but I thought he said that local authorities objected to the Bill. In fact, it is not the Bill to which they objected; they did not like Clause 4. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the reason for Clause 4 is that properties occupied by charities have, in many cases, suffered severely from revaluation because the old method of sympathetic valuation is no longer in use. It is for this reason that we had to consider whether the relief which many charities received in the past from sympathetic valuation should not be replaced by some more rational and equal form of relief which would be common through

out the country. That is what Clause 4 does.
I am confident that local authorities will administer these provisions fairly, that few cases of dispute will occur, and that they will not experience the difficulties which have worried hon. Gentlemen. I am also sure that they will give careful thought to the exercise of their discretionary powers for further relief over the wider field which is allowed under Clause 5—which would help, for instance, in the case raised by the hon. Member for Shettleston.

Mr. McInnes: Is the Minister trying to encourage local authorities to give these people 100 per cent. relief? He seems to be taking away local authorities' discretion and making this mandatory.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member has a very poor opinion of local authorities if he thinks that. For the reasons which have been given on many occasions, the Government believe that in the question of charities the rating relief should be the same throughout the country; in respect of bodies analogous to charities local authorities are to be given freedom of discretion to provide rating relief. That is all that I have been saying.
I do not think that there are any other points of substance which require to be answered.

Mr. Manuel: I raised one question during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I thought that some distinction should be made between various organisations, depending upon their ability to pay. An educational establishment might be charitable but might also have large reserves and large investments. This fact is not taken into account, as I understand it. Therefore, local authorities will not be ascertaining whether relief is necessary. An organisation may not need or want relief.

Mr. Galbraith: There we get into very deep water. The hon. Member wants to have different kinds of charities. The view that we have taken is that a body is either a charity or is not a charity. If it is a charity it gets mandatory relief; if it is not, but its work is akin to that of a charity, a local authority is given discretion to grant relief.
I do not believe that there are any other points of substance that require to be answered. We have discussed the Bill at considerable length in its other stages, and I hope that with the relatively short debate we have had today the House will feel disposed to give the Bill a Third Reading and speed it on its way to another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

FORTH AND CLYDE CANAL (EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHTS OF NAVIGATION) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair.]

Clause 1.—(EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES RELATING TO NAVIGATION.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: In the Second Reading debate we accepted the principle that the navigation rights on the Forth and Clyde Canal should be extinguished. Some of us, however, were troubled about what would happen afterwards. Despite the assurances contained in the speech of the Under-Secretary of State, I should like to press the matter a little further. It will be seen that the Bill is presented by the Secretary of State for Scotland, supported by the Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Transport, who, in turn, has some influence on the British Transport Commission. That Minister has not attended any of our discussions, and I should like to know why.
Can we take the assurances of the Secretary of State in this matter as being the last word? The Transport Commission will still be responsible for this waterway, to the extent that it will supply the water for industrial purposes. According to the speech of the Under-Secretary, it will also be responsible for the maintenance of the banks, sluices and bridges. I should like that assurance reinforced, because some of us feel that the Bill is just a little too simple. It appears to evade the suggestions con

tained in the Bowes Report on Inland Waterways, the undesirability of Hybrid Bills and the necessity for Public Bills dealing with canals after navigational rights have been extinguished.
There is one other factual point which I hope the Committee will not regard as being too small to pay attention to. During the Second Reading debate the Secretary of State said that the overall working costs of the canal
have been £77,000 annually, the total receipts £40,000, the greater part of which is from industrial water, and the working deficit £37,000 per annum on average."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 1065.]
This deficit would be reduced if navigation rights were extinguished.
A comparable figure is mentioned in the Bowes Report, in paragraph 205, which says:
In 1956, water rents on the Forth and Clyde Canal produced £21,800.
Both figures may be correct, because £21,800 is certainly the greater part of £40,000, but I should have thought that in the context in which the Secretary of State spoke he was referring to a much greater sum than £21,800 in speaking of the sale of industrial water.
Another question therefore arises. If navigation ceases and the present receipts for the sale of industrial water are maintained at their present level, what are the future figures likely to be? How far will the costs of maintaining the banks of the canal and other safety measures be met by income from the sale of water? Most of us accept the principle of the Bill because of the advantages which flow from it, including the advantage of getting on with the building of better bridges at a much lower cost than would otherwise be the case, because the bridges can be built in conformity with existing rights and there will be no necessity to build opening bridges which, I understand, would cost about £80,000.
We want to know what will happen after the closure of the canal for navigation. Does the Secretary of State accept the interpretation of the Bowes Committee in respect of redevelopment or elimination? It appears from the Government's White Paper that they accept the principle of redevelopment, but the Bowes Report pointed out very


effectively that this could lead to canals being abandoned and becoming derelict, and, therefore, nobody's children. This has happened in the case of the Monk-land Canal, in Glasgow. I will return quickly to my point to put myself in order. We are not discussing the Monk-land Canal tonight. I cited it merely as an example of what could be seen in many other parts of the country.
The Government do not appear to have accepted the responsibility of introducing a Public Bill. What are the prospects of such a Measure being introduced to deal with this problem? It is true that the closing of the canal to navigation will mean the end of operating the swinging or bascule bridges which are placed at intervals over the 35 miles of this canal. Eventually, they will be dispensed with. The large bridges which are manned by the corporation's employees also will be dispensed with and the council will be saved a certain amount of money in wages, and so on. Delays at the existing bridges create traffic hold-ups which it is estimated cost £135,000. Were the canal to be kept open for navigation, the cost of new bridges could be astronomical and could amount to £2,500,000. Therefore, we understand the desire of the Government to have this Bill.
However, it is a question of what will happen afterwards and we should be grateful if once again the Under-Secretary of State would give a categorical and complete assurance that the safety measures in connection with the canal will be continued; that the banks and sluices will be maintained by the Transport Commission and efforts made to avoid the weeds overgrowing the banks; and, also, that efforts will be made to avoid the possible loss of life among children, and the accidents which occur periodically in Glasgow.
I do not wish to exaggerate. I agree that parents, teachers and other public people have a duty to point out that the risk of loss of life is greater on the roads than from drowning in the canal, and that dangers are even greater in the home, but we are aware of the upsurge of public sympathy when these things happen and people want this reassurance. The present time gives an

opportunity for the Under-Secretary to give such a reassurance.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I can reassure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and give the categorical assurance for which he asked about safety measures. We appreciate the considerations which have led to his interest in the Bill and his fear that circumstances analogous to those which have given rise to such sad incidents in his own constituency may occur in future as a result of any change in the position regarding the main canal.
As I said during the Second Reading debate, the provisions in the Bill in no way reduce the obligations regarding the maintenance of the canal for all purposes other than that of the through traffic of vessels. The rest is completely unaltered and the question of the weeds and banks is still an obligation on the Transport Commission.
The provision of industrial water will not be affected. The hon. Member referred to a figure in the Bowes Report. The latest figure I have is for 1960 and is £23,000, but there may be an increased demand in the future. There will not be an alteration in the amount as a result of the provisions of the Bill. The only financial change will be the removal of small tolls from the through passage of vessels. Long-term planning for the canal will depend on a general development plan.
The reason for the Bill is not to alter the position in any way regarding long-term planning, but simply to take the immediate measures necessary to go ahead with alterations to the bridges without incurring heavy and unnecessary expense.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. James McInnes: The Under-Secretary has answered all the points mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan). We recognise that an obligation will remain with the British Transport Commission regarding safety precautions, and so on. Nevertheless, the loss of life is a serious matter and we should like to know whether more concrete proposals are likely to emerge designed to avoid the loss of life.
My hon. Friend did not confine himself to the Forth and Clyde Canal, but mentioned the Monkland Canal. We should like further information about the redevelopment. Is that to be by the local authorities? In what way may the redevelopment be carried out? Will they set up housing estates and things of that kind? I cannot visualise further redevelopment on the Forth and Clyde Canal from the Glasgow area to the Dunbarton area. Further redevelopment is out of the question, because all that area has been redeveloped.
I do not suppose that the Glasgow Council or the Dunbarton County Council, or the burgh, could find an inch of space on either side of the canal suitable for further redevelopment. I should like to know what is meant by redevelopment.

Mr. William Baxter: I should like the Under-Secretary to clarify the question of the cost of maintenance of the canal, which is not now to be used for transport purposes, and the cost of maintaining the reservoir. This will be a heavy expenditure from year to year. After the heavy storms of last week great damage was done, which necessitated about 30 men of the Transport Commission working on Saturdays and Sundays to rectify it.
I wish to know how the maintenance of the canal and reservoir will be carried out from a financial point of view. What is the amount to be asked per 1,000 gallons of water from industrial consumers? How is it to be decided what industrial consumers are to be permitted to take water from the Banton Reservoir and the canal? Are we proposing to allow this matter to drift along with the expenditure incurred at present in maintaining the canal banks and all the rest of it, or are we proposing to make it a paying proposition? Hon. Members are entitled to answers to those questions.

Mr. James Dempsey: I wish to know what the Minister means by long-term development. We listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), who is an authority on the subject, and who explained the problems of maintenance. Will the canal be maintained adequately? Will precautions be taken to prevent

accidents which may occur to children wandering about near the canal, or perhaps to people who may be returning home under the influence of drink? Will it be cleansed? Will pollution be prevented, to avoid the whole neighbourhood being upset by plagues of insects such as we have experienced with the Monkland Canal? These are questions which require to be answered.
Mention has been made of the junction with the Monkland Canal at Castle Street. Obviously, the concentration of the Monkland Canal into the Forth and Clyde Canal is a tributory course. Unless the Minister, in his anxiety to maintain this canal in a safe and unputrid fashion, tackles the tributaries of the Forth and Clyde Canal he will find that his efforts are to a great extent abortive. We have heard at the Dispatch Box assurances about a short-term policy of maintenance, of local development, antipollution and so on. That is all very well from a short-term point of view, but is that short-term policy to continue indefinitely, or is any alternative to be considered? Are the Ministers considering the alternative of removing the canal and eventually replanning development? I do not know the area, but possibly highways could be planned. I know that the Monkland Canal would make a good highway for the different townships through which it now flows.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, but I wonder how far the Minister is to go in fulfilling these needs. It would seem to need another Department and another Minister. I want to know if consultations have taken place with the Minister of Transport and if this understanding has been arrived at by bath Ministries. If so, we may take it for granted that the assurance Which the hon. Gentleman has given the Committee this evening will be fulfilled. We should have more information about how far the Ministry of Transport is co-operating in regard to these assurances given to the Committee. That is extremely important from the short-term point of view. We should be given some information on redevelopment and whether there have been discussions and deliberations or representations made by the other Department involved, so that we can look forward in the near future to some plan being enunciated by the Secretary of State for


the future long-term use of these stretches of waterway.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Under-Secretary will appreciate, as he did on Second Reading, that no one on this side of the Committee objects to what is being done by Clause 1. None of us wants the navigational rights to be continued. We accept that it follows from that that certain obligations now undertaken by the British Transport Commission need no longer be borne by the Commission, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a great deal of concern about what will happen to the canal when the Bill becomes an Act.
The Under-Secretary has given certain assurances about the maintenance of the banks and so on, but the only justification for continuing this canal in existence is that it is a source of supply, and said to be an essential source of supply, of great quantities of industrial water. One wonders if the quantities of industrial water are so enormous when the total income from the sale of that water amounts to no more than £23,000 a year. That is not a great deal of money when we consider the great industries which apparently find this canal essential to their well-being.
If this water is so essential to the wellbeing of those industries, can we be satisfied that a proper price is being charged for it? This canal was originally developed for the purposes of navigation. It is no longer used for that purpose but is to be continued in existence for the sole purpose of providing industrial water. We have understandable pleas that the Government shall ensure that the canal does not become a death-trap, or more of a death-trap than it has been up to now. It has already claimed many victims. Some of us hoped that when the navigational rights were taken away the canal would disappear and would no longer be a threat to those, particularly children, who play on its banks through want of proper playing fields.
This week we have heard a great deal about the deficit of the British Transport Commission. It seems a great pity that that deficit should be contributed to, even by the small amount required to keep this canal in a condition of not too much danger to the public—it will

always be some danger—because the industrialists are undercharged for the use of the water. May we have an assurance that a reasonable price has been charged? My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) called attention to the proposition he made that not enough was being charged for the water. If the total receipts amount to no more than £23,000 a year it seems that this scar across Scotland is not of such great importance, after all, in the supply of water to industry.
It may be that further steps should be taken—not the step of abandonment, as was done in the case of the Monkland Canal, leaving it as an eyesore and source of public danger and a breeding ground for disease. We do not want that to be the next step with the Forth and Clyde Canal. We hope that the next step might be that the whole length of the canal will be cleaned and the danger to life by drowning and to public health by breeding of disease from the canal shall be removed. So long as it is required as a source of supply for industrial water, some of us wonder why industrialists cannot pay an economic price for the water.

Mr. Brooman-White: I think that I can deal under three headings with the various points which have been made. I must explain again what the Bill does and what it does not set out to do. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said that everyone agreed with what the Bill sets out to do—that is, to abolish the right of through traffic. Apart from doing that, the Bill makes no change in the existing situation. That, in a sentence, is the answer to all the other points which have been raised. It makes no change in the finances nor in the charge for water, and it makes no change in the wider matter of the future use of the canal.
Any further scheme for development is not, as I said earlier, prejudiced or altered in any way by what we are doing in the Bill. If a scheme is brought forward by the British Transport Commission or a local authority or anybody else, it will be considered on its merits at the time. The Bill does only one thing. It deals with through navigation. It therefore effects economies on bridges and facilitates the road programme. I hope that this explanation reassures hon. Members.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Hannan: Does the Under-Secretary agree with paragraph 10 of the Memorandum issued by the Scottish Office to hon. Members on 12th August, 1960:
If redevelopment proposals are not made from some source, there is no apparent alternative, in the absence of legislation, to the continued existence of the canal in its present state.
The situation is summed up succinctly in that paragraph and if no proposals come forward the canal will remain. Although the Transport Commission owns the canal, it has no responsibility to do anything about infilling it or otherwise getting rid of it.

Mr. W. Baxter: The Under-Secretary has not answered the very important questions he was asked. This proposal will fundamentally alter the use of the canal. Did not the original Act setting up the canal and the reservoir for feeding the canal stipulate that the canal and reservoir were to be used for navigational purposes? The Government are now altering the basic use of the canal and the reservoir. They should, therefore, tell the Committee, before hon. Members agree to the legislation, who is to pay the bill for maintaining the canal and the reservoir.
Have the Government the right to alter the basic use of the canal and the reservoir without at least considering whether compulsory purchase of land or compulsory deviation of roads took place when the canal and reservoir were originally built? The Government should consider whether they have the right to do this. The Under-Secretary says that the Government are not altering the use, but the use is being altered to such an extent that the canal is now to become a feeder for industry.
Much as I want that state of affairs to be continued, I think that it should be continued in a reasonably sensible way. The reasonable way would be to pipe the water from the reservoir towards Grangemouth, where all the water could be utilised in the new industrial area, and fill in the other part towards Glasgow. If this were done, there would be no danger to children.
I have asked a few definite questions which have not been answered. The Under-Secretary merely said that, if other schemes were proposed, the Government would consider introducing

legislation to put reasonable schemes into operation. This is not sufficient. I do not think that we should pass this Measure without getting a clear understanding from the Secretary of State about the future of the reservoir and the canal. The taxpayers will be put to considerable expense in maintaining the reservoir and canal and we should at least be assured that this will be paid for by revenue raised from those using the water.

Mr. Brooman-White: I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) thinks that I did not adequately answer the question. I tried to do so when I said that the financial position would not be significantly changed, except that the fairly negligible dues for through traffic would be removed. I can answer both him and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) on the same point. The incentive on the Transport Commission is not materially altered by the provisions of the Bill.
The hon. Member for West Stirling-shire referred to a change in use. It is a change in use only in so far as we will remove in future the very small number of boats which make the through passage. The incentive for maintenance and the financing of the maintenance are unaltered. The main sources of finance—industrial water, and so on—are unchanged. I am assured that the technical changes in bridges and other arrangements which will be made as a result of the Bill will not affect the provisions of industrial water and these other considerations.
The Bill is strictly limited in scope. It has only one objective. As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said, the Committee agrees with the objective. I can only repeat the assurance I have already given that the other matters which concern hon. Members are not materially affected by what we are doing. I hope that the Committee will accept this.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — BROADCASTING (B.B.C. LICENCE AND AGREEMENT)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [29th November]:
That the Licence and Agreement, dated 6th November, 1961, between Her Majesty's Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.

Question again proposed.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: This debate was adjourned on 29th November. I do not think that I ought to detain the House at any great length tonight, because it makes much tidier debating if we have the speeches from both Front Benches. I do not apologise for being in this position, because it was not my fault that we did not hear the speeches from the Front Benches on the previous occasion.
I think that it is essential that I should make two points. In my remarks on the previous occasion I may have conveyed a wrong impression. It was represented to me that I appeared to be opposing and criticising the British Broadcasting Corporation. I assure the House that, far from criticising or opposing it, I have every possible admiration for the organisation and its achievements.
The B.B.C. is a broadcasting organisation par excellence, although it has its faults, which most of us could pinpoint in no uncertain way. When one makes a comparison of the broadcasting and television services almost throughout the world, the B.B.C. stands out with distinction, The standard of its entertainment programmes is very high, and the same applies to its documentaries. Perhaps one of its most important national functions is the provision of that wonderful overseas service which does so much to represent abroad the real voice of Britain.
The Minister will have a duty to try to see that not only is the whole of this Agreement carried through, but that it improves even the excellent service the Corporation renders to the nation. I notice that as a result of the present Agreement there has been a large extension of the Corporation's educational services. The Report issued in 1935 stated that about 3,500 schools were

in receipt of the Corporation's sound programmes; today, that figure has been multiplied nine times over. The Corporation can congratulate itself on the progress it has made there.
On the other hand, we find that even now only about 2,500 schools are benefiting from the provision of the television services. I would ask the Minister to seek to step up the type of work that the Corporation is doing for the schools. There is also a weakness in the sphere of adult education. Only 183 hours per year are broadcast in the interests of adult education, while on television I believe that there is only the Saturday night science programme, amounting to half an hour a week. The Minister might look at that when seeking to improve the services.
I am a little concerned about the Minister's intention to ensure the application of the full terms of the Agreement. I am not very satisfied with the Postmaster-General's lack of insistence on this. One has only to look at the abuse being made of the 1954 Television Act by the independent television companies. Section after Section of that Act is today being ignored. There is, at the moment, a dispute between the members of Equity and the independent television companies. The Act states that large numbers of old films shall not be used, but I.T.V. is at present using enormous quantities of them and the Postmaster-General is not making any effort to enforce that Section of the Act.
I understand that the Hughie Green programme gives prizes of £1,000, but Section 3 (3) of the Television Act, 1954 states:
Nothing shall be included in any programme broadcast by the Authority, whether in an advertisement or not, which offers any prize of significant value"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is going a little wide. This Motion does not concern I.T.V. We are concerned with the length of the B.B.C. Charter.

Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate that that is strictly true, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but my point is whether the Postmaster-General is prepared to be stricter in his insistence on the terms of this Agreement being carried out. What I am seeking


to do is to illustrate the indifference, almost, of the Postmaster-General to the carrying out of the terms of another Agreement. I submit to you—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot go very far with that.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: As I understand it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the difficulty is this. We are discussing whether or not to renew for two years the B.B.C. Licence and Agreement. If we do not do so, we shall have no B.B.C. at all and shall be left only with I.T.V. I wonder whether it is very relevant to the question now before us to consider what we would be left with, and also to consider the different principles embodied in the B.B.C. as against I.T.V. It is, perhaps, rather difficult to judge whether or not we should renew the B.B.C. Charter without considering all these other matters as well.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. I think that it is admissible to go into that matter by way of illustration, but it will be realised that that procedure is fairly limited.

Mr. Loughlin: That is precisely what I was saying I was attempting to do, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and if I have deficiencies which do not enable me to do it as I should, I humbly beg your pardon. Whatever deficiencies I may have, I have a wealth of experience in examining and assessing the value of agreements, and my experience is that the only way in which one can really assess their value is by comparing one with another. If there are two agreements dealing with the same subject it is really impossible to evaluate one without reference to the other. There are many similarities between the B.B.C. and I.T.A. Agreements while other provisions of those documents are dissimilar. I was not seeking to go into the pros and cons of the dispute involving the I.T.V. although that is, to some extent, relevant to our discussion.
Concerning the financial provisions of the Agreement before us, we see that the income of the independent television companies is fairly substantial compared with that of the B.B.C. Let us assume that the dispute in question ends in victory for the Equity members. Is it

not reasonable to further assume that, in that event, the Equity members will then demand from the B.B.C. fees similar to those which have been secured from I.T.V.? Is it not essential, in considering the B.B.C. Agreement, that the Postmaster-General should take into account the possibility of there being an additional burden place on the revenue of the B.B.C.? I therefore doubt whether we can consider both the dispute and this B.B.C. Agreement without making reference to the possible outcome of that dispute.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who is more capable and circumspect in dealing with these matters, will pursue this point, for I believe that we must take into account the possibility of an additional £3 million—the approximate cost to the independent television companies if the Equity boys win, and I hope they do, for it is a scandal for the I.T.V. companies to act in the way they are at present. But what about that additional £3 million which may be imposed on the B.B.C.? Does the Agreement before us take that into account when considering the various extensions of the B.B.C.'s facilities that all hon. Members desire to see? As I said, I welcome the Agreement. I have nothing but praise for the B.B.C. and I wish the Corporation every success in the future.

8.24 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). The Motion before the House is:
That the Licence and Agreement, dated 6th November, 1961, between Her Majesty's Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.
This matter was previously before the House on 29th November last. I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I explain, first, the need for the resolution, secondly the Amendments, which are largely formal, which the new Licence and Agreement make to the existing one—dated 12th June, 1952—which continues substantially unchanged and, thirdly, deal with various points which were raised on the last occasion this matter was before the House.
The B.B.C.'s present Licence is due to expire on 30th June, 1962, and this new Licence extends it to 29th July, 1964. The B.B.C.'s Licence and Agreement requires an affirmative Resolution of the House since it contains Clauses which govern the Corporation's external services and constitute a contract extending over a period of years and creating a public charge, entered into by the Government, for the purpose of telegraphic communications beyond the seas.
Standing Order No. 87 provides that such contracts shall be approved by the House. So it is a condition of the Licence and Agreement—as of previous Licences—that
the contract thereby made shall not be binding until it has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
I should say at this point that the B.B.C. Royal Charter, which sets out the B.B.C.'s constitution, is granted under the Royal Prerogative and does not require the approval of the House. That is not a matter of debate today, but the Government propose to recommend for the approval of Her Majesty the Queen that the Charter should be extended to the same date as the Licence; that is, 29th July, 1964. My right hon. Friend referred to the need to extend the B.B.C. Licence to this date when he told the House on 13th July, 1960, of the setting up of the Committee of Inquiry into broadcasting under the chairmanship of Sir Harry Pilkington. The date 29th July, 1964, is the date when the Television Act, 1954, expires. So the lives of the B.B.C. and I.T.A. are being made coterminous.
Here indeed is the reason why the new Licence is extending the life of the present B.B.C. Licence but is leaving its provisions substantially unchanged. We shall be able, in due time, to debate and decide the future of television and sound in a manner at once comprehensive and comprehensible. The external services do not come within the scope of the Pilkington Committee. A statement on these services was made to the House by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 23rd January.
What, apart from the date of expiry, is the effect on the 1952 Licence of the

new Licence before us? As I have said, the amendments it makes are, in essence, merely formal. There are two. First, as the new Licence is the first issued to the B.B.C. since the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, became effective, it provides for the Corporation to pay in respect of its Licence an issue fee of £500 and a renewal fee of £500 at the beginning of the second year, instead of a royalty, which was also £500, as formerly. Clause 16 of the current Licence, which provided in terms for the payment of a royalty, is therefore omitted. It is replaced by Clause 3 of the new Licence.
Secondly, Clause 27 of the current Licence is deleted. That Clause disqualified members of the House or of the Senate or of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland from any benefit arising from the contract. It was put in because the Acts to which it referred disabled persons concerned in certain contracts from membership of the House of Commons or the Senate or House of Commons of Northern Ireland. As hon. Members know, the relevant provisions of the Acts referred to were replaced by the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, which at the same time disqualified B.B.C. Governors from being Membe2s of the House of Commons or the Senate or the House of Commons of Northern Ireland.
Otherwise there is no change. I should, however, add a few words of explanation on one of two points on which hon. Members seemed to find some difficulty the last time the matter was before the House. I take, first, the financial arrangements between Her Majesty's Government and the Corporation.
The original Clause 17 of the 1952 Licence and Agreement dealt with the period up to 30th June, 1955. That Clause has been superseded by Supplemental Agreements, normally covering three-year periods, which have been laid before the House on each occasion, in 1954, in 1957, and again in 1960. The 1960 Agreement already provided for the B.B.C. to receive 100 per cent., of net licence revenue for the year 1961–62, and the new licence is continuing that arrangement for the period up to 29th July, 1964.
In respect of the external services, the Corporation will continue to receive, as at present, out of supplies voted by Parliament such sums as the Treasury may authorise.
My right hon. Friend was also asked on 29th November by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West why he does not now have to consult the B.B.C. about the expenses incurred by his Department in relation to broadcasting services within the British Isles, which are deducted from the broadcast receiving licence revenue, whereas under the 1952 Licence he had to do so. That is not an amendment now being made. Until the 31st March, 1954, an agreed percentage of the revenue was reserved for Post. Office expenses. From 1st April, 1954, however, under the Supplemental Agreements I referred to earlier, the amount of revenue set aside for Post Office expenses in each year has been equal to the expenses actually incurred. I think everyone would accept that it is right for actual expenses to be deducted. The position under the new Licence is no different from that under the Clause in the Supplemental Agreements of 1954, 1957 and 1960, which had already superseded the 1952 Clause.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Lady realises now that, on the previous occasion, we had not sufficient documents before us and it was impossible for us to find out about these things. Hence this adjourned debate.

Miss Pike: I recognise that, and I thought it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if, for the purposes of the record, this matter were explained and put straight.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West was bothered also about Clause 11 of the current Licence which deals with the employment of aliens, but I am sure that, here again, now that he has seen the documents referred to, he understands those matters perfectly.
From time to time, of course, we have to answer Questions in the House about various aspects of B.B.C. activities, and possible developments. The House rightly continues to show a lively interest in a medium which is so pervasive as broadcasting. Television is watched by about 34 million people and sound broadcasting is heard by about

25 million every day. I know that the Corporation studies with care all that is said in the House about its activities.
The B.B.C. will, of course, continue to press on with extension of its present television and sound coverages. Stages I and II of its plans for local satellite television and VHF sound stations have already been announced. The Corporation has further extensions in mind, and my right hon. Friend has had its proposals for Stage III which are under discussion with it.
I think that extension to July, 1964, of the B.B.C. Licence is a sensible step to take. I do not think that I should be tempted to indulge in speculation as to the future. A far-reaching examination of broadcasting is now being made by Sir Harry Pilkington and his colleagues. They have an immense job to do and they are applying themselves to it with vigour and resolution, undaunted, let me add, by the number of weighty memoranda they have received. The number of papers put in exceeds 600. When the Committee's Report is available, I foresee that we shall have some far-ranging debates on broadcasting. But such a debate would be premature today.
The purpose of the Motion now before the House is to continue the B.B.C.'s powers and duties pending this major review. It is in substance uncontroversial and will, I hope, command general acceptance.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The House is always glad to hear the hon. Lady the Assistant Postmaster-General. With a very great deal of what she said I think that there will be agreement on both sides, but I am bound to confess that I felt a little disappointed that she was so limited in her aims at the Dispatch Box this evening. After all, it is a very big thing to renew the Charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation for two years. We do not often have an opportunity to consider its work, to decide whether we are critical of it, whether we wish to praise it, or to consider its impact on our national life.
I thought that the hon. Lady was, if I may say so, a little optimistic in thinking that she could get away tonight with


a purely technical and pedestrian account of the details of the Licence and Agreement. Much as we are glad to hear her, I miss the presence of the Postmaster-General on the Government Front Bench. This is an occasion when hon. Members on both sides will wish to make speeches. We have not had this discussion for a considerable time. We have had no apology from the hon. Lady for the absence of her right hon. Friend. I very much hope that a message will be sent to him inviting him to come.

Miss Pike: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and allowing me to say that I should have apologised for the absence of the Postmaster-General on this occasion. He is, unfortunately, engaged upon important negotiations. We could not forecast what time the debate would start, and he is sorry that he cannot be here. I was only glad that I had the opportunity myself of speaking in this important debate.

Mr. Mayhew: We realise that the Postmaster-General is having a heavy time of it at present. Nevertheless, there is not much prospect of this being a short debate. The House would much appreciate it if the Postmaster-General were contacted and invited to attend to hear what the House has to say about this matter and to intervene in the debate. As I say, this is not a matter to be treated lightly. It is one which has a great deal of public interest and about which I know hon. Members have a number of things to say.
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is not easy to discuss the future of broadcasting under the shadow of the Pilkington Committee. Nevertheless, I think that all of us, including those with strong views about what should be done—I count myself one of those people—will study the Pilkington report with great care and will keep ourselves in a position to be able to change our minds in the light of the findings and recommendations of the Pilkington Committee. The whole future of broadcasting is an extremely complex question, technical as well as everything else, and I do not think that any of us would wish to be

dogmatic before the Committee's report is published.
Nevertheless, in the past the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General have been a little too keen to shelter behind the Pilkington Committee's report and not to take decisions which they could well have taken without its report. I instance the question of colour television. It may be that it is a little late now to take a decision on that matter, but why could not the Government have taken a decision in favour of allowing the B.B.C. to make experimental colour transmissions without regard to the Pilkington Committee's report?
The Government could have taken such a decision months ago and the B.B.C. would have been able to make up some of the ground in colour television that we have lost to foreign countries had not it been forbidden to do so by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) raised this question many times in the House. We did not have a satisfactory answer, and, unfortunately, the B.B.C.'s enterprising and praiseworthy initiative in pushing ahead with colour television came to grief.
There is another point on which the Government could have taken a decision without waiting for the Pilkington Committee's report. Why has not the B.B.C. been allowed to increase its hours of broadcasting? Why should not the Light Programme go on all night? Shift workers and other people would enjoy listening to the Light Programme throughout the night. The only reason why they cannot do so is that the Government have declined to give the B.B.C. the necessary permission.
Why should Network Three and the Third Programme be confined to certain hours of the day? Why should not they go on all day? This would not be an expensive matter. The B.B.C. is willing that this should happen. It would get a certain listenership. Again, the Government have refused to give the B.B.C. the permission for which it asked. These are decisions which need not be held up for the Pilkington Committee's report. They could have been taken many months ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) raised another matter on which the Government could have taken decisions without waiting for the Pilkington Committee's report. They could have enforced the Television Act a great deal more effectively than they have. Like my hon. Friend, I view with some trepidation the possibility that the House might not agree to the Licence and Agreement tonight and will leave us simply with I.T.V. as the Television Act is practised at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West mentioned the Equity dispute. It is a fact that, because I.T.V. has to rely on old feature films, a number of the provisions of the Television Act are being disobeyed. For example, the balance and quality of programmes referred to in Section 3 of the Act were always the subject of criticism, including criticism in this House, even before the dispute. Admittedly, the quality and balance of programmes improved under the shadow of the Pilkington Committee. But now that there is this dispute the old films are coming back and these breaches of the Act are becoming more and more common. In addition, the treatment of the Equity dispute shows the lack of financial independence and control between the programme companies, which is again one of the breaches of the Television Act to which the Government should have paid a great deal more attention. Obviously, we do not want to pay too much attention in this debate to I.T.V., because our main concern is with the B.B.C.
I think that my hon. Friends would wish me to say that we have no intention of challenging the proposition tonight. We wish the Charter and Licence of the B.B.C. to be extended, because we think that it is a sensible and tidy arrangement that they should expire at the same time as the programme companies' contracts. Therefore, we support that. There is also the happy coincidence that we are having this debate on the very day of publication of the B.B.C.'s Annual Report, on which I suppose we have all been doing our homework. This is a helpful feature, and I should now like to make one or two points arising out of that Report.
At present the B.B.C. seems to me to have reached a new peak of popularity and respect with viewers and listeners. I shall try to amplify this later in what I have to say, but it has achieved this despite the fact that its public relations are extremely un enterprising and ineffective. I have never understood why a broadcasting system which rightly refuses to broadcast advertising should suppose that that meant that it should not advertise itself. I am not asking that the B.B.C. should copy the enormously extravagant "ballyhoo" of the programme companies. I am not suggesting that, but it could do a great deal better than it does in its public relations.
For example, to give a personal opinion, why is the Radio Times so deadly dull? In my opinion, it could be a great deal more lively and interesting than it is. I notice from this handbook that the circulation of the Radio Times has fallen from 8·8 million in 1955 to 6·78 million in 1960. I am not surprised at that. It is amazing how many people continue to read it, and, even more, having read it, still switch on the programmes advertised in the Radio Times. If I may suggest a personal remedy, it would be that the Radio Times should be handed over for a few weeks to the "Tonight" team to brighten up and edit.
In spite of this poor quality of publication and of public relations, the B.B.C. has reached a new peak of popularity and respect with the public, and, on both sides of the House, I think that will be regarded as true. I hope that tonight we are not having a party debate. I would be the first to agree that hon. Members opposite are good supporters of the B.B.C. and that British broadcasting owes a lot to the support they have given to the B.B.C. in the past.
One sign of the B.B.C.'s popularity is the progress it has made, in getting a higher share of the television audience. I have here the latest figures. The B.B.C. share of multi-channel viewing—that is, of the viewers who have a choice of programmes—shows that it was considerably greater than it had been a year earlier.
If we take the three months of October, November and December, 1961, its share has been as follows: in October, B.B.C. 43 to I.T.V. 57; in


November, 46 to 54; and in December, 48 to 52. It could be argued that this was due to the Equity dispute, but, on the contrary, a study of these figures shows that the trend was well set before the Equity dispute began, and these figures compare very favourably with the share that the B.B.C. had of the television audience a year ago.
This is being achieved when it is not the policy of the B.B.C., as it is of the programme companies, to achieve the maximum audiences at all times for their programmes, and it is achieved without taking account of the large number of viewers who still have not converted their sets to I.T.V., and must be regarded, therefore, as B.B.C. viewers. We must also bear in mind when considering these figures of the share of the programme audience that those who prefer the I.T.V. programmes to B.B.C. programmes also watch longer hours than those who prefer the B.B.C. programmes to those of I.T.V.
In the result, therefore, it means that probably on today's figures more viewers prefer B.B.C. to I.T.V. This, in spite of the poor public relations and the fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West stated, that the income of B.B.C. television is such a small fraction of that of I.T.V. The accounts will show that the actual revenue available for B.B.C. television is £20 million, and the gross revenue available for I.T.V. is over £80 million, or more than four times as much. In these circumstances, it is a considerable achievement for the B.B.C. to have secured this share of the audience, especially as the B.B.C. sets out by its nature to balance programmes rather than to obtain the largest audience all the time.
It used to be a great argument in controversy, but I do not think that it is still, that there is something democratic in a broadcasting system that goes all out to get the largest possible audience for its programmes. It was considered that this was giving viewers what they wanted. It is now common ground on both sides, including the programme companies, that this is not so and that a democratic system of broadcasting considers not only the universal-appeal-programme that gets the largest number

of viewers, but the minority programme that appeals to viewers as groups, with different tastes and different interests; and that a proper democratic system is one that maintains a proper balance between these two kinds of programme.
The minority programmes which appeal to viewers not as a whole, but as different groups, are not necessarily "highbrow." A greyhound racing programme or a snooker programme is a minority programme just as much as a Shakespeare or a ballet programme. These programmes are not highbrow necessarily, or in any sense of the term "unpopular". On the contrary, audience research shows that it is the minority programmes that are the most keenly enjoyed by those who watch them. This can be demonstrated. The B.B.C. programme research has two indices for every programme broadcast. One shows the size of the audience and the other, which is called the appreciation index, shows what is thought of the programme by those who see it. If it were true that the programmes which are directed to the largest audience were the most liked programmes, there would be a correlation between the two indices. The higher the audience index the higher the appreciation index; but anyone who studies it can see that precisely the opposite is the case. It is the small minority audiences that lead the higher appreciation index.
Common sense would show that this would be the case. In the same way that a tailor-made suit is more comfortable for the man who wears it than something off the peg, so a programme addressed to an individual with a special taste and interest in more keenly enjoyed than a universal programme which gets a bigger audience. This is true and it is common ground. It is profoundly important, because it knocks the bottom out of the case for commercial broadcasting.
If one's motive is simply to maximise advertising revenue all one is interested in is getting large numbers of people looking in or listening. But if one's motive is to give a mixture of universal appeal programmes and minority appeal programmes, one will lose advertising revenue and the commercial motive is in conflict with it. In the United States, for instance, it is purely advertising


.revenue and no other motive which applies—here we have our curbs to some extent in the Television Act—and minority programmes simply are not shown at all over the normal commercial networks. Thus, commercial television, so far from giving viewers what they want, denies them those programmes which they most keenly enjoy, even though they are not the programmes which get the maximum audiences. It is profoundly important to bear this in mind when we consider how we want to develop broadcasting in this country.
If we are to give viewers what they want, not only as a mass but as people with different tastes and interests, we must back the broadcasting system which leads to that result. The B.B.C. has no motive except to serve the viewers. I.T.A. has a dual purpose—to serve the viewers and also to swell advertising revenues. These two things are not always compatible with each other. The integrity of the B.B.C., its single-minded purpose, is its source of real strength.
There are one or two other points about the handbook to which I want to draw attention. It is worth remarking on the extraordinarily enterprising standard of some of the programmes—the travel and exploration unit, the exploitation of Eurovision and the live broadcasts from Iron Curtain countries. These are worthy achievements of the B.B.C. I also pay tribute to the objectivity and integrity of the Iron Curtain broadcasts. This is a profoundly important point. These broadcasts inform us about the Communist countries without propaganda either for or against.
I feel a personal interest in this because, in 1957, I visited the Soviet Union for the B.B.C. to try to get permission for some filming there. I had long conversations with Soviet authorities and they offered me the world—three sound film cameras, two studios, an orchestra, free travel—in fact, everything. [An HON. MEMBER: "Vodka, too?"] And vodka.

Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend did not take it, I hope.

Mr. Mayhew: On the other hand, I had difficulties. The film which was to go out had to be agreed with the Soviet authorities. I argued closely about

how much criticism and objectivity I could be allowed. I was told that I would be allowed some, but it was not enough. So, with the full backing of the B.B.C., I politely turned down the offer. But I must report that as I turned it down my Soviet friends said to me, "These same conditions have just been accepted by I.T.V." A few months later I saw a film on the U.S.S.R. which was colourful, interesting and popular, on I.T.A.—but it had no integrity.
That same year I went to China for the same purpose. That was far more difficult still. All I could get out was smuggled amateur film. The B.B.C. would never have looked at the conditions which the Chinese Government demanded. A few weeks ago I saw a film about China on I.T.A. which had been made with the full co-operation of the Chinese Government, so the T.V. Times said. It was, in fact, straight Chinese Government propaganda, relayed by a well-meaning innocent. I want to pay tribute to the integrity of the B.B.C. in this matter. One can make a very colourful and successful programme about a Communist country by playing in with the Communist authorities. This is something which needs to be watched. The B.B.C. has no motive for doing so, but there is money in this and I wish very much that the I.T.A. and the Postmaster-General would watch it very carefully.
Another aspect of the handbook which stands out is the enterprise of some of the B.B.C.'s future projects, and I want to talk about one or two of them. We know that the B.B.C. is to begin a series of programmes, comparing the virtues of rival commercial products, called "Choice". This is a welcome development. We cannot be sure that the actual production will be satisfactory and the B.B.C. has been slow to adopt the idea and I am not satisfied that the programmes will not be too cautious and possibly too dull. But the departure is enterprising and could give a great service to consumers and perhaps help to raise the standards, or lower the level of mendacity, of advertising on the other channel. I wish it well.
Perhaps I might help it along with a little practical suggestion for an item in the first programme, one which I have put up to the B.B.C. and, unfortunately,


had turned down. My suggestion is that in the first programme Mr. Richard Dimbleby should appear in the studio surrounded by two or three dozen newly washed pocket handkerchiefs and should read oat the names and addresses of the chairmen of the detergent companies and their advertising agencies who have declined his invitation to come to the studio and pick out which handkerchief was washed by their detergent. What is wrong with that? It is a free country. We would have a window in the studio so that the manufacturer of Daz could take a hankerchief over and give it the Daz daylight test. It would all be quite free and fair.
I hope that the B.B.C. approaches this problem with considerable courage and dash, because the public is in a mood to be given the truth about these advertised products and is sick to death of television commercials endlessly balanced on the razor edge between truth, on the one hand, and downright lying, on the other.
There is one other matter to which I draw the attention of the House and which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West and by the hon. Lady the Assistant Postmaster-General. It is the B.B.C.'s plans for sound radio. It is interesting to see from the handbook how the size of the sound audience has kept up. The key figure seems to be that, in 1961, 25·4 million people listened to one or more sound programmes each day and that the figure for 1960 was identical.
That reflects the fact that even though television is taking a great deal of programme audience away from sound, the growth of the car radio, the growth of the portable radio and the growth of the second set in the average household, or in many households, is offsetting the drift to television. One of the things which the Pilkington Committee will no doubt be considering and reporting about is the future of local sound broadcasting in this country. I am convinced that there is a fabulous opportunity for a new development for British broadcasting in local broadcasting.
There is something about local radio which is unique and which cannot be given by national or regional broadcasting. The regional broadcasts of the

B.B.C. mean well, but they have not caught fire. Let us take the news, for instance. If there is a post office hold-up in a town 100 miles away, it may or may not be news; if it is a post office hold-up in one's own town, it definitely is news; if it is a hold-up in one's own post office, it is sensational.
On that basis, local broadcasting can be of an interest and value to local people far beyond anything that regional or national broadcasting can give. There are not only news broadcasts, but programmes of all kinds—which can be given a new dimension by being close to the listener. It is for that essential reason that I believe that local sound broadcasting has a great future. In addition, it need not be extremely expensive. The estimate is of capital expenditure on local stations serving 150,000 people of about £30,000, and current expenditure thereafter of perhaps another £30,000.
Whatever views we have about how this should be organised, and we shall look with great interest to the Pilkington Committee's report on this, I think that we must all pay tribute to the extraordinary enterprise and initiative the B.B.C. has shown in experimenting and training for local sound radio. There have been experiments at Brighton, Bristol, Bournemouth and Poole in training people and in giving skeleton services for local stations. How far the B.B.C. should be responsible and how far local stations should be autonomous, using B.B.C. services, is one of the things that we shall no doubt be arguing about. I think that I shall be speaking for many of my hon. Friends behind me when I say that we believe it is essential, if these local stations are to be local and to serve their localities, that they must be non-profit-making and based on the principle of public service.
This year it seems that we shall be starting a big break-through in British broadcasting leading eventually to higher definition television, to colour television, to another public-service television network, to a spectacular development of educational television, and eventually to up to 100 local sound radio stations. I believe that there may be a good deal of feeling on both sides of the House that this great development should be put in train imaginatively and responsibly on a


public service basis. That, I believe, is an essential feature for the future development.
There is one final aspect of the handbook to which I should like to draw attention. That is the finances of the B.B.C. Often when hon. Members on both sides of the House advocate public service broadcasting and its extension we are asked, "How do you pay for it?". This, again, is a matter which we shall be debating this year, I expect, exhaustively. Nevertheless, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the extraordinary buoyancy of the licence revenue. Up to March, 1961, the total licence revenue, including the £1 Excise duty, was barely under £50 million a year. If we make the necessary deductions, the B.B.C. gets £33½ million. Of this, £20 million was allocated by it to television.
Twenty million pounds is an extraordinary economical sum. If we measure it against the £80 million or £90 million of gross revenue of I.T.V., I think that it shows the achievements of B.B.C. television in a proper light. If we imagined a kind of national broadcasting fund into which the licence money was put and into which was put a proper sum for renewal of I.T.V.'s advertising monopoly, which might well be £30 million or £40 million, we would have a sum already in a national broadcasting fund which would be sufficient to finance two general networks in addition to I.T.V., one specifically educational television network and 100 local radio stations.
That huge new development would be possible without any increase in the licence fee or any increase of broadcasting advertising in any shape or form. I believe that these figures of the buoyancy of advertising revenue and the buoyancy of licence revenue are extremely encouraging to those who wish to see a great development in public service broadcasting in the country.
I hope that the House will agree to renew the Licence and Agreement of the B.B.C., which embodies the principle of public service broadcasting and which seems to me to be a very good example of its advantages. We hope that the B.B.C. will be given a new lease of life not only until 1964 but, in due course, well beyond that. The principle of

public service for which it stands will, I believe, be the basis of a great new flowering of British broadcasting in the months ahead.

9.5 p.m.

Sir Robert Cary: In opening the debate the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) paid the most gracious tribute to the B.B.C., and we thank him for that, but I think that he was a little unkind to himself in saying that he had the impression that during our previous discussion he had shown rather an unfriendly attitude towards the B.B.C. The hon. Gentleman may recall that I sat in the Chamber for three hours during that debate. I had no such impression. Indeed, the whole discussion centred round the Charter, a copy of which he had, and his hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) took the opportunity of complaining to the Chair that he did not have a copy of it, and out of that arose an immense debate as to whether the hon. Lady the Assistant Postmaster-General and her Departmental friends had laid sufficient documents before the House.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we had no impression during those three hours that he was in any way unsympathetic or unfriendly to the B.B.C., and he has put it into its right context tonight.

Mr. Loughlin: Because of the statements that I made on that occasion, one hon. Member from each side asked me what I had against the B.B.C.

Sir R. Cary: I agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who made an interesting, well-informed and entertaining speech about the B.B.C., that this is not an occasion for great controversy in regard to broadcasting. That must come later from the Pilkington report which we hope we shall have by the spring.
Let us not be under any illusion as to the immense debate that this report will provoke. I have no doubt that, because of the extremely complicated subjects which have come before that Committee, its report will contain a number of minority reports which will have to be considered. Even if we get this report before the Easter Recess, I shall count ourselves lucky indeed if


we are able to have one or two days to take note of it this Session; and there is the possibility of our having no recommendations from the Government or any necessary legislation until we get to 1963, which might be a critical and dangerous year from the point of view of the circumstances of this House.
Therefore, after listening to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East who spoke tonight so well about the B.B.C. services, I would say that by extending the B.B.C.'s Charter to fall into line with the termination of the Charters of the independent companies in 1964, perhaps this may be the year in which a final decision will be taken about broadcasting for some years to come.
What concerns me about the Pilkington report is that it will contain much about radio, locations, colour bands, and all sorts of matter, but the overriding thing for which I shall look in the report is a main recommendation that public service broadcasting should remain the supreme and superior influence in broadcasting in Great Britain. Where broadcasting has been commercialised to a point of being prostituted, again and again Americans have said, "I wish that we had an American Broadcasting Corporation on the lines of that which exists in Great Britain."
I feel very strongly about this. I accept every word uttered by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East with regard to the hard-working services of the B.B.C. If this be not a moment to enter into great controversy with regard to broadcasting, it is a moment to congratulate the B.B.C. on arriving at its fortieth anniversary next November, when the B.B.C. will celebrate the foundation of the old British Broadcasting Company at Savoy Hill in 1922.
In particular I should like to congratulate the Director-General and his staff on winning last year the Golden Rose Trophy in Europe for the fastest, neatest and most entertaining effort in light entertainment with "The Black and White Minstrel Show". It was a superb performance and in terms of the limited amount of finance mentioned by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East it was quite a miracle that so good a show should be produced, not with money,

but with sheer sense of mission and enthusiasm.
I wish to raise two matters with the Assistant Postmaster-General which might be looked at by her right hon. Friend without in any way waiting upon the recommendations of the Pilkington Committee. Like other hon. Members, most of my time today has been devoted to reading the B.B.C. handbook for 1962. I have two thoughts in mind about the B.B.C. work. The Postmaster-General has received representations from the B.B.C. on both these matters of which the first and most important is the extensions asked for with regard to sound broadcasting. This is very important.
After a surfeit of television I turned back to sound broadcasting. I have two television and two radio sets in my home so that programmes are always available to me in any room. I have listened to many sound programmes in the last twelve months and they have been extremely good. I am most impressed by the way the B.B.C. has been able to attract back a listening audience of about 5 million people to sound radio. Even to well-known shows like "The Archers" as many as 4,500,000 people listen. If television be a mass media, so equally is sound broadcasting. If television can entertain and inform, sound broadcasting can build on that and cultivate in depth in an educational sense. I ask my hon. Friend to ask the Postmaster-General to allow some of the extension on sound broadcasting for which the B.B.C. is asking.
The second point I wish to raise was dealt with in the final part of the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East. The revenues of the B.B.C. come entirely from the licence fee. I think that roughly £35 million is taken from the £4 licence fee, and on the combined licence I consider this the cheapest entertainment in the world. In a society where every commodity seems to be rising in price the sum of £4 for the combined television and sound licence is almost the cheapest thing we have. The B.B.C. receives £3 of this and the Post Office the other £1. Many arguments are put forward for a rise in wages, but if there was ever a justification for a rise in price in respect of value given I believe that it is to be found in the combined


T.V. and sound broadcasting licence. It could justifiably be increased to £5.

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Member will agree that of the £4 at present collected £1 represents Exoise Duty and does not go to the B.B.C. If that £1 were to go to it it would make a lot of difference.

Sir R. Cary: I agree. But that is asking my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General for an act of unselfishness. I do not know what Parliamentary form it would take—whether it would be a Bill or a Motion.
The £35 million which goes to the B.B.C. is made up of the £3 proportion of the licence fee. Further, the Corporation receives £750,000 as a profitable revenue from the sale of the Radio Times. I agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East that that publication could be greatly improved. The circulation of the Listener has fallen slightly but it is still a widely-read paper. I believe that the Economist has a circulation of 60,000 a week. The Listener, with a circulation of 120,000 a week, is therefore even more widely read. I do not know whether it is profitable.
The B.B.C. is now also receiving revenue from its expanding television services overseas. The Americans have picked up its programmes quite substantially. For instance, there is "The Age of Kings"—which was a great triumph for the B.B.C. If even the commercialised American networks can choose a programme like "The Age of Kings" it shows that there is an audience in that country which can be appealed to enormously by our own medium and by the programmes that we produce.
I have spoken for longer than I expected, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General will forgive me. There is so much in this subject that we could discuss. I agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East; I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will get what she wants tonight by the House passing this Motion.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: As I understand it, the object of the Licence and Agreement is to ensure the continuance of the B.B.C. substantially unchanged until July, 1964. I hope

that it does not follow that there must be no changes at all between now and then, for there are many opportunities for development. It has been forecast that the Pilkington Committee will report at about the end of March this year. I agree that there will be some formidable debates when the report is published—more contentious debates than that which we are having tonight. If there are any critics of the B.B.C. amongst hon. Members opposite it seems that they are not here tonight.
Since the report will be published this year, I can see no necessity to wait until July, 1964, before taking any action upon it. Surely there is nothing to prevent an expansion of sound broadcasting. The fact that we are being asked to extend the Agreement until July, 1964, surely does not rule out any development. Perhaps the hon. Lady will make that clear.
I do not say this in criticism of the existing structure of the B.B.C.; rather the reverse. I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) that the concept of broadcasting as a public service is fully justified. I think that the B.B.C. is still held in very high esteem in many parts of the world.
While we all have our grumbles from time to time, I think that the technical standards achieved by the B.B.C. staff are very high. On the whole, the quality of the programmes is high. The handling of controversial subjects is praiseworthy, although I must admit that scarcely a month goes by without my receiving a shoal of letters from Liberals complaining that some controversial subject has been discussed on sound or B.B.C. television without a Liberal being given an opportunity to give the Liberal point of view. It may be that in course of time that will be rectified. I do not propose to pursue that matter tonight.
There is another item which may be added to the favourable side of the balance sheet. I think that the B.B.C. is still truly British. I was interested to read a comment in this evening's Evening Standard referring to the B.B.C. Handbook, 1962, which has been in our hands today. The article says:
Eighty-five per cent. of the 3,000 hours of programmes B.B.C.-T.V. puts out each year are now ' all its own work '. No other television organisation in the world can claim a higher proportion than that, says the B.B.C. Handbook 1962…


Of the remaining 15 per cent. 10 per cent. come from America, the rest from Europe.
That is something for which we can feel gratified. On the other hand, I regret the fact that Britain has lost the lead in overseas services. An extension has been promised in some fields, but that does not alter the fact that we have lost the lead.The article in the Evening Standard also says:
…the B.B.C., which once led the world in overseas broadcasts, has now dropped to fourth place. Russia, Communist China and the Voice of America take the first three places.
In view of that, it is regrettable that the overseas broadcasts to America have been abandoned. I do not think that that action is justified. This is not the fault of the B.B.C. I have no doubt that it is a decision of the Treasury. I think it a sign of cheese-paring on the part of the Treasury. If a saving had to be made I should have thought very much better ways could have been found than giving up these quite useful overseas broadcasts directed to the United States of America. Not only Americans listened to them.
One final quotation I wish to make is from a letter in today's Daily Telegraph, written by Derek McCulloch. Referring to this subject, he has written:
The 1,500 American stations radiating or relaying B.B.C. programmes must reach a tolerably larger number of people who are still not quite certain about us and do not wish to be converted by enlightened ' American citizens.
But now this is to be slapped down anyway, and to say that the staff behind the programmes now to be guillotined is ' disappointed' is to put it mildly. What frustration, and what a punch below the belt for the B.B.C. who surely ought to be allowed to know their job.
I hope that it will not be long before this situation is rectified, because it is a mistake.
There are many other developments which I know the B.B.C. would like to be allowed to embark on. There is a great opportunity for local sound broadcasting, with local talent and local news. We are not discussing commercial television tonight, although some hon. Members have come very near to it. I am not convinced that the case has been made out for commercial sound broadcasting at either a national or a local

level, but there is a strong case for local sound broadcasting.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Has the hon. Member noted that the Association of Municipal Corporations, representing nearly 28 million people, in its evidence to the Pilkington Committee held stronger views on this matter than on any other? The Association said how strongly it supported local broadcasting.

Mr. Speaker: What is all this about? The Pilkington Committee has not yet reported. If there were to be local broadcasting of this kind, as at present informed I should say that it would, be dependent on some licence other than that which we are now discussing.

Dr. Stross: On a point of order. Is it not feasible to discuss local broadcasting as an extension of the arrangements we have at present and will have until 1964?

Mr. Speaker: That depends upon whether or no they are governed by this Licence. I am governed by the Rulings of my predecessors in this context. I I do not know, but prima facie it looks as though it would be dependent upon some other licence. I am open to correction about this.

Sir Barnett Janner: Further to that point of order. I think that the extension of broadcasting to local stations is already developing under the Licence which prevails at present. Consequently, as an extension of the Licence is being sought, there can be no doubt at all that the furtherance of that object can be discussed in this debate. I speak subject to correction by the Government.

Mr. Speaker: I accept what the hon. Member says. If it is right, the whole proposition is in order. It depends upon my ignorance of the practice.

Mr. Wade: I am aware of the point which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) made when he first intervened. There are other aspirations of the B.B.C.—for example, the development of colour television. I have seen something of the great advance the B.B.C. has made and I hope that it will not be long before the general public is able to benefit. It is unfortunate that other countries have been able


to make headway whilst we have been held back.
I am convinced that in the B.B.C. is a valuable public service. I say that as one who has always been critical of nationalisation and sceptical of an extension of public ownership. This is a public service, but not a Government service. Thank goodness the B.B.C. is not the official mouthpiece of the Government, as it might be in some other countries. It is properly described as a service for the public. I believe that it is a great public service. I hope that nothing will be done in the coming years to undermine it.

9.30 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: Perhaps I may, with respect, Mr. Speaker, mention something to which I have already referred. In the recitals to the B.B.C. Licence and Agreement dated 6th November, 1961, we find:
AND WHEREAS the Corporation has applied to the Postmaster General for a further licence authorising the Corporation to continue to use its existing wireless telegraph stations and apparatus for wireless telegraphy and to establish instal and use additional stations and apparatus and granting other facilities …
Bearing that in mind, I feel that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) should be discussed and, with the greatest respect, I think that you will agree that it is in order so to do.
I associate myself entirely with the view expressed by every hon. Member who has spoken, that the B.B.C. performs a very important public service here and is admired in this country. I also know that it is also admired in such parts of the world, including the United States, which I have had the privilege of visiting. Criticisms can be made of the Corporation—I may offer some myself—but, generally speaking, we are all agreed that it performs a public service of very considerable importance and value.
I want to stress the fact that we must encourage this public service, and must be particularly careful to ensure that it is not encroached upon by private interests. In my view and that of the Association of Municipal Corporations, if permitted to do so it would be encroached upon and utilised by private

interests to the disadvantage not only of the public interest as a whole, but of the service itself.
A notable feature of the increased use of broadcasting is the manner in which public taste is being catered for, while not being bowed down to, by the B.B.C. The Corporation is now providing programmes that are appreciated by the public and is influencing them to enjoy a higher standard than they might ask for themselves. The development of a public taste for what is good is a very important service, and the Corporation is doing a very good job in that direction.
When discussing a subject such as this, we should not stop at being satisfied by the speech made by the Assistant Postmaster-General. It was a very good speech, but she was a little coy about what she and the Government thought of some of the important issues that have been raised by various organisations.
I happen to be an officer of the Association of Municipal Corporations and have, naturally, taken an interest in that organisation's point of view. It has been pointed out that 27 million people are represented by that body and it should be remembered that the local authorities are dealing with the lives of the people in a very intimate sense, particularly in education, entertainment and the provision of amenities. They are in daily contact with the public and they have been lead to the conclusion that the B.B.C. sound broadcasting should be utilised and extended by the use of local stations as much as possible.
Why cannot the Assistant Postmaster-General say this evening, without waiting for the Pilkington report, that she is encouraged by the results that have already been obtained in this direction and that she is prepared to accept, at least on trial—an extensive trial—the proposals made by, for example, the Association of Municipal Corporations? That body says, first, that under no circumstances should sound broadcasting be placed in any hands other than those of the B.B.C., that no private interests should be brought into it and that even the stations erected in the localities—which, they say, should be put up—should not have any pressures brought upon them by business or party political interests.
That, surely, is perfectly fair. The Association also says that such stations should be under the control of the B.B.C., helped by a committee on which the councils would no doubt have representation. Why cannot the Assistant Postmaster-General say, "All right"? I realise that private interests will try to defeat the case the Association has endeavoured to make, but it has, in its evidence, given very reasonable indications of what it thinks is the proper and important thing to do. We should not wait for the Pilkington report when considering this proposal, but deal with the matter now.
The Association says that the local services should be completely in the hands of the B.B.C., that they should be co-ordinated with the national programmes, that they should give a particular slant and pay full and due regard to assisting local activities—drama, music, cultural, and so on—thus enabling the various localities to develop their own talent and display that talent in a manner which would be appreciated and acceptable.
The Association says that in some cases the programmes could be coordinated between various localities while specific activities, such as would be required by a university town, would require an entirely different type of programme, which would be catered for. I see no reason why we should not proceed on these lines now.
I realise that the Assistant Postmaster-General has us at a disadvantage, since all hon. Members agree that the B.B.C. should be encouraged and continue. We are pleased at what it has done in the past. We agree that its activities should be extended, but the hon. Lady has not given us reasons for doing so other than the reason, substantially I admit, that the B.B.C. has justified its existence so far. I expected more vision from the hon. Lady. She has endeavoured, I think, to keep this aspect of the discussion quiet because the Postmaster-General is engaged on important business elsewhere. You should show a little more courage yourself and make an announcement before the debate closes. I am sorry, Sir. When I said "You", I meant, of course, the hon. Lady.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is good enough to apologise to me. He has been very helpful.
I hope that he will understand that I have been listening carefully to what he has said. I have not the point clearly in my mind yet. Let us suppose that what he is advocating were to be done, or let us suppose that it were not to be done: how would that be affected by approving or not approving the Licence and Agreement which is before the House? It seems to me that it would be equally possible whether it be approved or not approved. If that be so, it is not an issue which here arises.

Sir B. Janner: I said that I was in some difficulty, Mr. Speaker, because of my sympathetic disposition towards the Motion itself, but I can well understand that some hon. Members might say that, unless they had an assurance from the Government that the kind of extended activities I have been advocating were to be accepted, their consideration for what has been done already might be outweighed and they might, as a consequence, feel themselves unable to vote in favour of continuing the Licence and Agreement itself. That is why I am urging the hon. Lady to take into account what we want and tell us about what she has in mind for the future.
I do not want to keep the House much longer, but this is an extremely important matter, which requires careful thought. We ought to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to give an assurance that she will press ahead with that aspect of the matter. As I have said, the local authorities do not ask, and would not ask, for control. They say that it would not be right even for them to have such control, but what they do say is that they should be consulted and they should be on the committees which would be set up for the purpose of guiding those preparing programmes. In that sphere, they would be helping and serving an extremely useful purpose.
This is, I say again, an important matter which affects the interests of the community as a whole. It affects the specific interest of the localities. After all, people in some localities are not always interested in the general topics forming the subject of broadcast programmes in the usual way. On the other


hand, their particular topics at times would probably be of small interest to people in the country generally. They have specific interests. Let us encourage those interests. Let us hear from the Government tonight that they are prepared at least to proceed on those lines. I do not think that the Pilkington Committee or any member of it would be likely to try to upset what the Government did in that direction.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: As has been said, we shall have extended debates when the Pilkingtan Committee has reported. In those debates, no doubt, the atmosphere will be less harmonious than it is in the House tonight, and we shall hear the voices of many vested interests and of many hon. Members who do not take the enlightened view about public service broadcasting which we were very glad to hear from the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). If I may say so, I very much welcomed his speech and listened with the greatest respect, interest and agreement to every word he said. At the time when commercial television was being introduced, there was a very powerful lobby in the House working in the opposite direction.
That lobby is now working for an extension of the commercial principle into sound broadcasting and into local broadcasting in particular. Many hon. Members are actively connected with business interests of various kinds which are trying to prepare the ground for the time When the Government have to decide about the report of the Pilkington Committee. I think it strange that not one of those hon. Members who take a different view is present in the Chamber this evening.
I wish to say a few words about local broadcasting. I hope you will consider that this subject is in order, Mr. Speaker. After all, if the Licence we are discussing were not approved, it would not be possible for the B.B.C. to continue broadcasting of any kind or to engage in local radio broadcasts. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), I believe that local radio has tremendous possibilities. It may be one of the ways in which a new and vivid interest can be developed in local government, local politics and local affairs.

It would be valuable in breaking the monopoly which exists in many towns, including my constituency, in which one local newspaper is the only source of local news which people have. If that newspaper wishes to take a biassed, distorted or incomplete view about a local problem, there is nothing to answer it back.
As I have said, I think that wonderful opportunities could be provided by local radio. But anyone who has been to North America lately will agree, I think, that there are also hideous dangers, illustrated by local radio overseas. I hope that the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General will look carefully and closely at commercial local broadcasting in the United States and Canada. It provides a lamentable spectacle of a succession of cheap musical programmes conducted by disc jockeys and interrupted by lavish advertising and a few very inadequate news bulletins. We do not want anything of that kind in this country.
I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will consider carefully the various interests now advocating commercial local radio, in particular the activities of the newspaper proprietors who are spending a good deal of time and money on public relations operations, trying to work for the time when they will control local radio.
I have referred to the dangers of a monopolistic situation.In my constituency, we have a newspaper—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to keep interrupting. It is not my wish but these debates have been for a long time difficult to keep in order. Would not these independent activities be dependent on something other than the Licence before the House? That is the difficulty of this kind of debate.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We are in a difficulty, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that we are discussing the Licence governing the activities of the B.B.C. and that that Licence would permit it to conduct local broadcasting. Indeed, it has been carrying on pilot trials of local broadcasting. If the House were not to approve the Licence, the B.B.C. would not be in a position to carry on this activity. However, if we approve it, it would be possible for the Corporation to do so. If


I am in error, no doubt you, Mr. Speaker, or the Assistant Postmaster-General will correct me.

Mr. Speaker: That is quite right. Discussion of anything governed by this Licence and Agreement is clearly in order. The difficulty which my predecessors and I have felt is that what we cannot discuss is some activity which would be dependent, not on this Licence, but on something else. That is the only point of distinction that I ask the House to recognise.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will conclude my remarks on this point, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I hope very much that during the lifetime of the present Licence, and pending a final decision when the Charter comes up for review, the Government will not do anything to hamper the experiments which the B.B.C. is conducting in developing local sound radio but will permit it to go further and to start one or two local public service radio stations on a trial basis.
I wish to comment briefly on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East on whether or not public service broadcasting is more democratic than commercial broadcasting, because commercial broadcasting is getting larger audiences and therefore is giving the people what they want. My hon. Friend dealt very well with the important point that to deprive the many minority interests—and all of us have a number of different minority interests which do not always coincide—of programmes appealing to those interests is the antithesis of democracy. I have always felt sceptical when hearing advocates of commercial television—I heard Sir Robert Fraser make this point not very long ago—arguing that the commercial networks are giving the people what they really want. The fact is that the commercial networks are giving the people what the advertisers want them to have and which they are paying the commercial network to provide them with.
Although we have lately seen what some people have called the "Pilkington programmes" going on to commercial television networks, programmes of a higher standard, we think in anticipation of the findings of the Pilkington Committee in order to impress that Committee, it remains true that, by and large,

commercial television is providing programmes containing the lowest common denominator of appeal and which appeal to the widest possible audience. That is what the advertisers want to put their message across.
Like my hon. Friend, I am delighted to see that at long last, after many hesitations and much too much caution, the B.B.C. is to put on consumer programmes. I am sorry that it has not shown more courage and has not done it sooner, and I very much hope that it will not be too scared at the reactions which it is bound to get from vested interests when the programmes begin. The only thing it has to do is to make certain of the right balance between the participants taking part in the programme, and everybody in the general public will expect that it will devise programmes from a perfectly independent point of view. Both television and sound radio have a tremendous job to do, a job part of which is very inadequately and very dishonestly done by commercial advertising at present, in presenting new goods and services to the public in an objective way. I hope there will be a great extension of these consumer programmes into sound radio and into commercial television.
I should very much like to see not only goods and services discussed in an impartial and balanced way on these various media, but also analyses of advertisements appearing on commercial television. I should also like to see the I.T.V. required to conduct a programme every day analysing the advertisements appearing on their screens in that day.
I now turn for a moment to the overseas services, to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) referred in his speech. Like him, I am very sad about the cuts made in the overseas services of the Corporation, although I am bound to say that perhaps in the case of Europe there is something to be said for limiting the number of languages in which the Corporation transmits. I doubt very much whether there is or ever was a very wide audience for programmes other than news programmes in some of the more obscure languages current on the Continent of Europe. I think that listeners in Greece, Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary


or Finland, who are interested in listening to the B.B.C., are mainly interested in getting news which they know to be objective and honest, and that nearly all of them who are sufficiently interested to wish to listen to the B.B.C. will speak either English, French or German, or, possibly, in some parts of the Continent, Russian. Therefore, I very much hope that while during the lifetime of the Licence which we are proposing to extend there may be some pruning of the languages used for overseas broadcasts, and though there might well be some pruning of the entertainment content of these programmes, we shall see an extension of their total output, and particular attention given to news bulletins in those languages which are generally spoken throughout the world.
I am very glad to see a new development of a French langauge programme for Africa, so that the B.B.C. is now catering for the African Continent in the two main European languages spoken there—English and French—as well as Swahili. Obviously, it is not possible for the B.B.C. to broadcast in all the languages spoken on the Continent of Europe, and it would be even more difficult and much more expensive to broadcast in all the many languages and dialects spoken on the Continent of Africa. But the new French language B.B.C. service for Africa has done a useful and effective job in the former French colonial territories.
Like everyone who has so far spoken in the debate I congratulate the B.B.C. upon having produced for many years the finest public service broadcasting system in the world. I am glad that we are to extend this Licence and I very much hope that when it comes to an end there will be a new Government in power which will take a very different look at sound broadcasting and at television.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I would echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) has just said and I hope that we shall have a Labour Government to implement the new Licence in the middle or at the end of 1964 for, I presume, both the B.B.C. and commercial television.
I hope that the B.B.C. will be courageous in the consumer programmes which it is to introduce shortly, because undoubtedly the Consumers' Association in its monthly publication Which? has done a great deal to enable consumers to have some reliable reports on objects which are bought every day by large sections of the population. We are given an objective analysis of these goods, which are often very costly, on which the consumer can rely, and the great increase in the number of members of the Association is an indication of the great need for that kind of service. I look forward to the B.B.C. developing that side of its programmes.
I have an enormous appreciation of the work of the B.B.C. since it was first instituted. My only complaint about it is that it supports the "Establishment" far too much. As one who was born in a worker's home of two rooms I am quite aware of the general assumptions of the Establishment that they really are Britain in themselves. The B.B.C. tends too much to support that general idea.
I have been a critic of the B.B.C., when it has been necessary, from time to time even in the House. I am glad that of the new satellite transmitters which the B.B.C. is now erecting we shall have one at Redruth in West Cornwall which I and many others told the B.B.C. would be necessary when it set up the radio transmitter on North Hessary Tor some years ago. I am proud of the West Region of the B.B.C. because I think that it has been a truly regional authority. It has insisted from the beginning on dealing with the countryside as one of the major interests in the West Region, as indeed it is. The region's greatest industry, farming, has been given full scope in West Regional programmes. It has now developed the pioneer project of local broadcasting which has been much discussed in this debate. I shall say no more about it except to welcome the initiative displayed by Mr. Frank Gillard and those who work with him in the West Region.
I know the West Region, and I want to say how proud we throughout the West Country are of the natural history unit services which do programmes for the B.B.C.'s whole network. Some of


the programmes are absolutely outstanding. I think that those who saw the film of wild life in the New Forest must have been amazed at the skill and persistence of those who compiled that programme. As one who is not really musical, I can also say how much the music broadcast by the B.B.C. has done to widen my life. I feel that I personally owe a great debt to the B.B.C. on that score—one which must be shared by hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. I hope that it will continue with those high cultural standards which we have come to expect from it.
Finally, I believe that the B.B.C. is entitled to keep the whole of the licence revenue. It is monstrous for the Treasury to withhold a quarter of the revenue in order to ease taxation. The B.B.C. has shown what magnificent work can be done even on a limited budget, and I feel that the times demand that it should have the full revenue, because we can rely upon it to make fine use of the money.

10.2 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I hope that the B.B.C. will not be complacent about the turn which this debate is taking, but it is none the worse a debate because tributes are being paid to the B.B.C. I want to express my own gratitude to the B.B.C. for all that it has done for Britain in my lifetime. I speak as a radio amateur going back to the days of crystals, cat's whiskers and 2LO—and, indeed, to the days before the radio valve was invented and we had iron filings as an elementary kind of valve.
I speak as a lover of music, as one who regards education as being about the most important problem of the free world, and as one who regards the democratic way of life as the most precious thing on this planet. In this age of mass media, radio is one of the most powerful. When the social history of this period comes to be written, if democracy survives and creates the worth-while society which it has the power to create but has not yet brought into being, I believe that the B.B.C. will be written in that history as having played a not unimportant part in the process.
I think that the present generation is batter-informed, has a wider range of interests and of hobbies, and a wider cultural background largely because of the B.B.C. At any rate, it is to a considerable extent due to the work of the B.B.C. But for the B.B.C., millions of our countrymen would never have heard a symphony, a concerto, or an opera. We are the most inadequately provided country in the world in the matter of opportunities of hearing live opera. But for the B.B.C. very few people outside London would ever have heard an opera. We should never have heard the voices of great English men and women in politics, in literature, in entertainment. Many of us would have been deprived of a real contact with outstanding geniuses in all walks of life had it not been for the propagation of their voices through the ether by radio.
In sport; I think, for example, of cricket as a cricket enthusiast. Those of us who struggled in 1921 with difficulty to get into one match of the series when the Australians wiped the floor with the English Test team, until the Hampshire cricketers Mead and Tennyson saved us towards the end of the summer, can contrast that with the fact that cricket enthusiasts today are able to hear first-hand accounts of Test matches taking place in Australia, and actually see them taking place in our own country. What goes for cricket goes for every sport in the world.
We get one of the best reports of Parliamentary debates. I would not say the best, because the prestige newspapers give similar comprehensive and objective reports, but the range of people who hear the day-by-day summary as given by the B.B.C. is perhaps larger than that of those who read the prestige newspapers. More seriously, it bound us together in the war years. The effect of radio in those years was probably about the most vital influence in keeping Britain spiritually alive during the war. Last Sunday we were at Cape Canaveral. Some months ago we heard the Lunik cease to make a noise as it arrived on the moon. It is impossible to say what the B.B.C. has done for sick folk in hospital, for old folk in the evening of their lives.
Radio, the Press and TV face the same problem—the quest for popularity,


the quest for obtaining the largest audience or the largest circulation. Like every other mass media, the B.B.C. had to ask itself whether it would take the lowest common denominator in every field with which it dealt and play to that lowest common denominator. It had to decide whether to adopt the attitude which Lord Northcliffe took to the Press at the beginning of the century, saying, "Here is a new elementary educated population; we will give it just what it wants; indeed, just beneath what it wants." It had to decide whether to follow the line of over-simplification paralleled in the newspapers by the headline treatment of news. It had to decide whether to follow the line of sensationalism, of pursuing persons rather than ideas, of making all its entertainment light entertainment, of seeking merely novelty.
Those were the lines which the B.B.C. might have followed from the start. It could have gone that way. It is to the credit of Reith as first Director-General of the B.B.C. and the team which he built round him that it sought from the beginning not to pursue the line that the popular Press has pursued. This was partly due to the greatness of Reith himself and partly to the quality of the team which he built round him and which has continued through the history of the B.B.C., but also—and on this side of the House we believe this to be fundamental—because there was no financial interest at stake in achieving what one might call "popularity".
This is not a question of intellectual snobbery. It is a question of being anti-entertainment. The B.B.C. could not have survived had it not been popular in the real sense of the word. But, to some extent at any rate, its aim has been to be just a little ahead of the common denominator rather than just a little beneath popular taste. It decided that it would provide good entertainment and magnificent news coverage. It has provided an interchange on current affairs which has been probably the freest interchange of public opinion on the radio in the whole world. There have been discussions on literature and music and art at all levels, first-class sports coverage and, in the Third Programme, one of the finest minority programmes in the whole

world on radio, equalled only by some of the VHF stations in some of the great cities of America.
I believe, and I think this is worth saying tonight, that the standard that the B.B.C. has set itself has to some extent influenced commercial television in this country. This is not a question of personnel only. There are dedicated programme-makers on I.T.V. just as there are on B.B.C. Anyone who has been to the studios of either the B.B.C. or I.T.V. finds great radio folk at work in all fields. There are first-class programmes on I.T.V. Some of the best programmes on commercial television hold their own in any field with the best programmes on B.B.C.
I believe that one of the great achievements of the B.B.C. is that it has prevented commercial television in this country from following the path of the worst commercial radio and commercial television in America. How bad that can be only those who have seen it or appeared on it, as many of us have done, know.
There have been no forces at work in the B.B.C. other than the forces of radio entertainment and radio education. There has been no commercial angle to all the work that it has done. The B.B.C. may have made mistakes. I would only say to anyone who criticises the programme-makers, who have to provide a varied range of entertainment for 50 million people, that there is no one in this House who could provide on his own radiogram or tape recorder a three-hour programme which would entertain half a dozen of his friends without annoying some of them during the three hours. To devise programmes which would please everybody at every moment is beyond the power of anybody. It makes mistakes. It may have the faults of which my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) has spoken.
It is attacked from the Right and the Left. When it makes a programme in the centre, it is accused by the Right wing of being too Left and by the Left wing of being too Right. It has handled almost every controversy in the country. It may make mistakes but they are mistakes of judgment and not mistakes in


which some powerful vested interest is at work to counter the best in the interests of radio or television.
Its competitor, commercial television, on the other hand, must have as its basic aim the securing of the largest number of viewers. If not, the advertisers would refuse to advertise or, as has been done in the present strike, want to cut down the price they are paying for the advertising space.
It is worse in America. I remember seeing a commercial programme in Radio City, New York, where, at the end of the first act of a musical comedy, the curtains were drawn. The leading actor walked out and proceeded to advertise the Oldsmobile car because the Oldsmobile Company was partly financing the show. I remember a programme in America where the political commentator after commenting on the fall of Malenkov turned from his political subject to advertise tooth brushes which were on sale in the store nearby. None of this has occurred on our own commercial television. But always the force is at work to seize the greatest mass of audience for the advertiser and obviously the same force is at work there as is at work on the proprietors of the News of the World in their search for 6 million readers each Sunday.
It is easy to exaggerate, but frankly I do not care what happens to grown-ups. I do not care what kind of entertainment, or what kind of fare, is set before the adults of this country. I do, however, worry about children. I worry about youth. I suggest to the House that a society which feeds the minds of its youth entirely on cultural pap and all the lightest fare will certainly not in the years ahead win the battle for democracy and the preservation of a free society. It will not do so by the cheapening of humour, the cheapening of pathos, the cheapening of tragedy, the pulling out of all subleties from every problem, the presenting to the British public of every problem as black and white—whereas all problems are grey—the absence of shades, and the emphasis on violence. I think of my three-year-old daughter at Christmas standing before the television set rapt with wonder, eager, and hoping, and then, as the programme, a children's

one, moved towards violence running away from what should have been an entertainment for her to hide under a chair. I believe that the B.B.C. has to some extent preserved us from this.
Anyone who compares from the violence point of view, from the linking of sex with violence, American commercial television with British commercial television, knows that partly because of Parliamentary control I.T.V. has been preserved from the excesses of commercial radio in America.
The B.B.C. in its quest for popularity has had to imitate some of the things which I.T.V. puts on in its programmes, lest it should appear that it is losing viewers to the I.T.V. audience. If the B.B.C. has influenced I.T.V., the converse is true, and the influence of I.T.V. on the B.B.C. is not good. The contrast is marked when we turn to sound. Radio Luxembourg is not really a competitor for the B.B.C. programmes, and, on the whole, in sound the B.B.C. has pursued a way laid down by its founding fathers.
Looking ahead, I hope that we shall decide that the limit of commercial television and radio has been reached, and that the best way in which we can express what we feel about what the B.B.C. has done as we renew this Charter is to renew our determination that, whatever further developments take place in radio and television, it shall, whilst not necessarily under the control of the people to whom we are giving this Charter—perhaps a parallel body—still be under the control of people whose only object will be the furtherance of good radio and television and not some commercial or other financial interest.
As one who has loved and admired the B.B.C. all his life, I am proud of the opportunity to express tonight my tribute to what it stands for.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I should not like it to be thought that the sympathy and admiration for the B.B.C. comes from only one side of the House. Most of us who have seen and heard the B.B.C. for many years are filled with admiration for the work that it does.
On the whole, we manage to establish institutions of outstanding merit, and I believe that we can, without any false


claim, say that in the B.B.C. we have the finest institution of its kind in the world. That is not to say that it is without fault. I rather quarrel with what the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) said. I think that the influence of commercial television—to which I was at first opposed—has been beneficial in making "Auntie" a little more amenable than she otherwise might have been.
One programme which strikes me as outstanding and which, as far as I am aware, has not received any tribute this evening, is "Radio Newsreel". Surely there is no other programme of its kind in the world that comes anywhere near its quality and comprehensiveness. I should not like to guess what sort of money it costs, but I know that I should not like to have to pay the cable and telephone bills. It is obviously an expensive programme, but it is outstanding, and goes out each day in five or six different forms. It is a contribution to this country's outlook on the world.
In agreeing to this Licence, as I am sure we shall all do very freely, there is reason to look at the administrative costs inside the B.B.C. Organisations which obtain their funds in the way in which the B.B.C. does are apt to get a little cosy, and are certainly apt to get a little over-staffed, administratively. Little empires are built up. People are employed in the administrative field and are given assistants in cases where the numbers could be reduced. I should like the B.B.C. to take a look at its administrative fat. A certain amount of pruning might take place with advantage.
With that qualification I assent, as I am sure we all do, to the granting of this Licence, and I once again express my admiration for a magnificent British institution.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I do not wish to absolve the B.B.C. from all criticism, but I would not have thought that the criticism that it over-employed people and was too bureaucratic had a great deal of substance in it. In public relations and in advertising itself to the public the B.B.C. employs far fewer people than do its competitors in commercial television.
It is a fortunate and perhaps rather odd coincidence that this debate should be taking place on the day of publication of the B.B.C.'s Annual Report, its Handbook, which has an unusually gaudy cover this year. It must be rather heartbreaking for the cohorts of highly-paid publicity officers in commercial concerns who advertise themselves day in and day out by means of expensive and glossy brochures to find this dull and earnest compendiary being delivered by accident on the very day that it can be used to the maximum purpose in a debate in the House.
I now join with other hon. Members in paying tribute to the work which the B.B.C. has done over the forty years of its history. I approach this matter not with an uncritical feeling for the B.B.C., as such. Indeed, I am not in favour of a B.B.C. monopoly of broadcasting or television in principle. I am strongly in favour of the public service principle in broadcasting, and there are various ways of working that out. Like others, however, I greatly admire the B.B.C. I am astonished at the way in which it has adapted itself and its sound radio programmes to the tremendous growth of television.
I had thought that I was one of a few who had been discriminating enough to discover the value of sound radio programmes in the last year or two, and it was with great dismay that I found from the Handbook that I am merely one of 24 million people. What the B.B.C. has done, with tremendous ingenuity, is to show that in many fields sound programmes have advantages over television programmes.
I think of orchestral music. I must confess that I find myself distracted by an orchestra appearing on a television screen. I would far rather listen to it on the old "steam radio". Very often I consider that radio variety is much more entertaining, stimulating and enjoyable than variety on television. Despite shows like the "Black and White Minstrels", the "Billy Cotton Show" and others, I am still a "fan" of "Take it from Here." I do not think that television can ever do that sort of thing in the same way that sound radio can.
Then of course the news bulletins are one of the outstanding contributions of


the B.B.C. to our public life. When speaking recently to a member of another place we discussed the newspapers which we read. I was somewhat astonished when this well-informed and active man in public affairs said that he was busy with his own work and could not find time to read any but his own local newspaper. Apart from that, he relied for his general background news on the B.B.C. news bulletins and commentaries.
I suspected that this was an exaggeration, but recently I had the experience of being isolated abroad a ship and having no communication with the outside world except with the B.B.C. overseas service, and by listening to the overseas news bulletins and radio newsreel, to which the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) paid such a deserved tribute. It was possible to keep oneself remarkably well-informed simply on the basis of these services of the B.B.C., and I consider it a very remarkable institution.
There will be many hon. Members who will share the views expressed about the cuts being made by the Government in the amount of money available to the B.B.C. for its overseas broadcasting services. I had plenty of opportunity, when in Africa, to study at first hand the effectiveness of these programmes. It seemed to me that excellent programmes were being spoilt by the parsimony of a Government who were unwilling to give to the B.B.C. the kind of funds necessary to make sure that the programmes were broadcast at the right sort of strength and at the best time to be most effective and to compete effectively with the much more raucous and propagandist voices to be heard on the ether.
I commend the attention of the Assistant Postmaster-General to the lesson which may be drawn from some of the figures in this Handbook, particularly those given for the hours of external broadcasting per week for the B.B.C. and for the United Arab Republic which she will find side by side. Fortunately for his country, the B.B.C. is still just a little ahead of the United Arab Republic in the "league table" given on page 90 of the Handbook. In 1950, when there was another kind of Government in this country, the B.B.C. was engaging in 643 hours per week of external broad

casting. Ten years later, in 1960, the figure had dropped to 589. In 1950, the United Arab Republic was not engaging in any external broadcasting at all. In 1951, the figure was 28 hours per week. In 1953, it was 86. In 1958, it was 254, and in 1960 it was 336 hours per week.
If this trend continues, and the Government are not willing to give the B.B.C. more money for this essential national service on behalf of this country—I would say an international service in terms of setting an international standard of objective comment on world affairs—we shall find that next year the United Arab Republic will be above us in the "league table" and that, gradually, we shall slip backwards.
As others have done, I should like to commend to the Assistant Postmaster-General the idea that in the meantime under the terms of the present Licence we are extending, the B.B.C. should be given every encouragement to extend experiments in local broadcasting. Already, it has done very good work there, including work in my constituency in Dundee. Only a few months ago I was somewhat astonished when some people rang me up and asked for comments on a local issue for a local broadcasting programme. I asked what local programme it was and was told that they were experimenting for the B.B.C. in running a completely local programme for a day. They wanted to find what could be done and how useful it could be. This has been done in other parts of the country. Local broadcasting could have a tremendous effect in revitalising local life and culture.
I took part recently, in Dundee, in an amateur local broadcasting station programme. It sends out over a Post Office line programmes to patients in hospitals in Dundee, programmes with local colour and sometimes commentaries on local football matches. What is remarkable about this is that when hospital audiences can get the Home Service Programme, the Light Programme, and see on large screens commercial and B.B.C. television, it is the local programme, with local colour, which has an appeal which makes them switch on to amateurs doing voluntary work instead of to the highly paid professionals. If this were done properly and professionally local broadcasting programmes could be tremendously useful.
Coming from sound broadcasting to television, it also seems that the B.B.C. has shown more public-spiritedness in terms of meeting the needs of people in the district I represent. The Assistant Postmaster-General will remember that I went to talk to her about the inadequacy of television reception in the Dundee area, both from commercial and B.B.C. television. So far, only the B.B.C. thanks to her efforts, has "got cracking" and is producing some results. I do not take the view that commercial television has not performed a service in this country. I think that it has helped to keep the B.B.C. on its toes and perhaps to make it do some things, some desirable things, which it would not otherwise have done.
The B.B.C. suffers from a stuffiness and timidity, an excessive fear of the Postmaster-General or any of us who might decide to ask a Question. The B.B.C. is far too establishment-minded and frightened of upsetting the traditions of this country. Commercial television often has a refreshing frankness and irreverence. It also has a lot of other things which are a high price to pay for these new qualities, but we can adapt ourselves to the advertisements. I am becoming highly skilled at getting up quickly when an advertisement comes on and going out of the room to make the cocoa. My children watch the advertisements and very often sing the advertisement songs. When in my car they sing "The Esso Sign Means Happy Motoring", and I always look at my guage and seek a Shell petrol station to fill up.
Before I get out of order, I wish to make the point that the commercial companies with these vast sums of money behind them have not made adequate use of them in the public interest. I think, for instance, of Scottish Television. The owner of Scottish, Television, Mr. Roy Thomson, made the notorious remark that having ownership of this network was like having a licence to print one's own pound notes.
I do not think anybody thinks that Scottish Television has made an adequate contribution to Scottish culture, or made an effort to spend some of its lavish profits on promoting Scottish programmes. Commercial TV has spent its profits on bombarding hon. Members, and no doubt people of influence in other parts of the country, with glossy publicity designed to win us

over on the issue of the future shape of broadcasting in this country which is involved in extending this Licence. It has tried to convince us that commercial television should have some further extension.
This debate will have served a useful purpose if it has done nothing more than allow the House of Commons to compensate for the money that has been spent by these commercial companies in this expensive publicity. Time cannot be bought in the House of Commons. It is a tribute to the place the B.B.C. has won for itself among our national institutions that this long debate tonight has been a unanimous debate in support of the B.B.C.
The debate has been unanimous for two reasons. The first is that the Government back benches have been almost completely empty during most of the debate.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: And the Labour benches.

Mr. Thomson: There have been many more Members on this side than on the other side during most of the evening. However, that was not the point I wanted to make.
My point was that on this side of the House there are no opponents of the public service standards of the B.B.C., whereas it is well known that on the other side of the House there are many hon. Members who hold a point of view very different from that which has been expressed tonight. When the Pilkington Committee has finally reported and we debate its report, we shall no doubt find that the Government back benches are very full with hon. Members who will be very anxious to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or that of Mr. Speaker.
The second reason why the debate has been completely unanimous is that the Assistant Postmaster-General has been inhibited from expressing any point of view on behalf of her Department. This is understandable in the present state of the game, though perhaps she misjudged the mood of the House in giving us quite such a technical speech this evening and not anticipating that there would be a desire by hon. Members on both sides to raise the wider issues involved in the extension of the Licence and pay a well-deserved tribute to the work of the B.B.C.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, West (Mr. Loughlin), who has enabled this debate to take place. In November, when the Question was almost put without debate, with a quick reflex action he jumped to his feet and saved the day. This debate has been very useful, in spite of the fact that in the main it has been one of acceptance of the proposal before the House and one in which many bouquets have been handed to the B.B.C. The Assistant Postmaster-General has been able to give a little curtain raiser to the big debate which most hon. Members have foreshadowed. She lifted the curtain only slightly, but she said sufficient to make us realise that when the big debate takes place it will need to be a very long debate indeed. I welcome that. As one who conducted a good deal of study on a previous Pilkington Report, I have always regretted the fact that the House has never had an opportunity to discuss it. I am gratified to know that the next Pilkington Report will receive the attention of the House.
A number of hon. Members have made points about the extension of the Licence with a view to B.B.C. services being extended to local broadcasting. For that reason alone the debate has been worth while, because the team at work at all levels in the B.B.C. who must have been doing a considerable amount of work on this project and who. as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) mentioned, have been conducting experiments in his constituency, will be glad to have received the straws 'n the wind to indicate the opinion of the House of Commons on this project. The voices heard in the House tonight have been wholeheartedly in favour of the continuation of that experiment.
I believe that such a scheme would help to restore the balance of a position in which the nation tends to be dominated by London. I speak as a London Member of Parliament, and it is very difficult to see how a local service can apply equally, for example, to my own constituency in Willesden, in Ilford and, perhaps, in Enfield when, in London, we do not necessarily share the same

sense of local community and purpose. A scheme of that nature, however, would balance that terrific concentration on the Metropolis by giving to such places as Manchester, Birmingham, Hull and others some feeling of participation in affairs. The Corporation did a marvellous job with its "The Archers" programme by linking up the town and the country, so giving those living in the towns some idea of what goes on in the countryside. I am sure that the Corporation will take due note of what has been said here tonight on the subject of local broadcasting services.
Another matter on which hon. Members have touched, and one which will be useful to the B.B.C. when examining its future, is the consumers' programme. I hope that in extending that programme, the Corporation will be just as bold as the Consumers' Association and Which? have been. As the House knows, I am particularly interested in health matters. I recall that the Minister of Health made it quite plain that it is national policy to discourage young people from smoking. In the Report recently issued by the Minister of Health there is a full page showing how injurious to health cigarette smoking is. It shows that in Jersey, where cigarettes are only 1s. 10d. a packet and consumption is high, the lung cancer rate is the highest in Europe. Yet we have the commercial side broadcasting to the young people every quarter of an hour that if they want the girl of their dreams and if they want to appear manly, and all the rest of it, they must smoke cigarettes.
The new programme that the Corporation is putting forward can do a good deal to counter the health anxieties that are being exploited on commercial programmes, with people being told that this or the other analgesic will largely cure their 'flu in five minutes or prevent them feeling one degree under. From the consumers' point of view, the new B.B.C. programme can be of considerable service to the nation and I wish the Corporation more power to its elbow.
I know that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) will forgive my saying that I cannot accept the slight


slur in his label of "Old Auntie B.B.C." That kind of tradition dies hard. It was common to affix that derogatory title twenty years ago, and we have a job now to get rid of it. Nevertheless, I challenge anybody to look at the new B.B.C. Television Centre at Shepherd's Bush and then talk about an old-fashioned Corporation—

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member might, perhaps, concede the possibility that the term "Auntie" may be a term of affection.

Mr. Pavitt: I accept that. The Assistant Postmaster-General, too, could be a little bolder in claiming with pride all the research that has been and is being done. In some spheres her own Department has led the world, and the B.B.C. has done a marvellous job from which other nations and even I.T.V. have benefited. I should be interested to hear—though not, of course, tonight—about the new work being done on orbital broadcasting. A number of scientific magazines have forecast that with the various satellites now floating about in orbit there is a possibility of getting simultaneous broadcasts, so that while the 100 yards is being run in Tokyo we shall see it in London. The B.B.C. is well advanced in these matters and we should be rather proud of the way in which this publicly-owned service is so up-to-date in matters of research. The Postmaster-General should take every opportunity to blow his own trumpet in this matter. We should indeed be proud of the B.B.C. and more people should know that.
The splendid help the Corporation has given to the under-developed countries should be emphasised. It has pioneered a number of advances in sound radio but it has not been greedy, for the Corporation has been prepared to share its knowledge, technicians and "know-how". One of the most recent examples of this is in the newly independent country of Nigeria. The Nigerian Broadcasting Service owes a great deal to the way in which it has been able to lean on the B.B.C. in its early stages and develop its techniques.
A more recent example of this pioneering work is some of the experimental work going on with the "can

ning" of programmes which give newly developing broadcasting services in the under-developed territories some of the "know-how" in presenting and producing programmes. This work has not been just the donation of a recorded programme but the elements to help the local people make their own. The Corporation has done excellent work in these matters and we can be proud of this, especially when one considers—as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) pointed out—its financial limitations and the large area it covers.
Although this is a non-controversial subject and there have not been any verbal clashes or any great fireworks, this interim debate before the Pilkington Committee reports has been useful, for it has given us an opportunity to express to those within the B.B.C.—and I am referring not only to the Director-General, but to all of those who go to make up a team, including engineers and technicians in that institution—the respect that will always be held for them as long as they remain as imaginative and forward looking as they have been in recent years.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I should, perhaps, be pleased that I am possibly one of the last speakers tonight and that the B.B.C. may not report what I have to say, for I may, on behalf of an area in which the B.B.C. seems to register almost no sound, have to introduce a jarring note into this general round of praise, almost without reservation, for the B.B.C.
Yes, the people in my constituency have some very serious reservations about the B.B.C. I am rather sorry in a way that the Postmaster-General is not here. I am not suggesting that the hon. Lady the Assistant Postmaster-General is not an adequate substitute, but one begins to suspect that the Postmaster-General himself has begun to work to rule. Is that the explanation? The reason why I regret his absence is that he is, perhaps, more familiar with the questions I wish to raise because I have discussed them with him.
I have listened to hon. Members on both sides of the House praising the B.B.C. and, of course, I have nothing


to say to detract from that praise. The Corporation deserves it for its work over the years and, indeed, we have reason to be proud of it and of its service to us and to other countries. I am not, therefore, going to criticise the general quality of the service or the service generally.
This is, after all, a small country territorially and it seems unreasonable that, in 1962, the B.B.C. has not yet overcome the technical and financial difficulties of providing even good sound services for the whole of the country. It seems really incredible that, with all the technical resources at its command and all the financial resources which ought to be at its command—though that is not altogether within its control—there should still be areas where it is not possible and it will not be possible for years to come, not before 1963, 1964 or 1965, to have even a reasonable sound service. I am not talking about VHF; I am talking about ordinary sound reception of the Scottish Home Service in the north-west Highlands and Islands. I have apologised for introducing a jarring note. The B.B.C. does not introduce a note at all. That is perfectly true in many areas in the North-West where people are not able to enjoy the ordinary services which are enjoyed elsewhere.
This is a shame on the British Broadcasting Corporation. It is even more a shame on the Government for having failed to give the Corporation the financial wherewithal to go ahead with the job of extending good sound reception, VHF reception and television to the outermost islands and further peninsulas of the British Isles. We do not blame the B.B.C. for it altogether, The B.B.C. has been raring to go for a long time. It likes to have plenty of time and plenty of notice so that it may experiment a little with the equipment necessary for the provision of services to island and mountainous areas. I blame the Treasury and the Postmaster-General, who must share responsibility for it with other Ministers. Therefore, if I am critical, I have good reason to be, and I should be betraying the trust of my constituents if I were not and did not introduce a jarring note.
If it is of any help to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), I will remind him that it was the Cockney poet William Blake who said something to the effect that it was easy to sing on the wagon loaded with corn and to teach patience to the afflicted. That is not exactly right, but he will understand what I mean. Most people have the wagon well loaded with corn, whereas we, unfortunately, are the afflicted. All we are offered is advice to be patient for a good deal longer. while other areas enjoy good reception and alternative television services, looking forward to colour television, enjoying VHF reception, yet still finding a margin of criticism of the B.B.C.
One can readily understand ordinary people who live in the North-West or in the Islands feeling aggrieved when they hear of demands made in the House for all the luxuries of a television and radio civilisation, if that be the word. and for additional facilities and luxury services, while they are still without ordinary basic services of sound which others have taken for granted and enjoyed for generations.
We are not whining. We pay in that area exactly the same licence fee for B.B.C. services. It is a very modest fee, and excellent value is given for it. However, if someone is paying the same basic fee, he expects to get the same service and have a right to it. If that were our only disability, perhaps we might he able to treat it with more equanimity, but, unfortunately, we also pay the same Road Fund licence fee for motor vehicles which are used in an area closely circumscribed territorially by the boundaries of the Islands. One still pays the same fee in both cases yet in neither case does one have the value for it that people have in the rest of the country where there is free scope for enjoyment and use of the services. In many respects, people who are taxpayers and citizens and who have every peace-time and wartime citizen obligation feel that they are badly cut out and denied the services which are taken for granted elsewhere and for which they have nevertheless to pay the same fee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. Thomson) and other hon. Members paid tribute to the enterprise of the B.B.C. in experimenting with


local services. This, of course, may be quite a large part of the answer to our problems in areas like the Highlands of Scotland and parts of rural England and rural Wales. It may be a large part of the answer for those of us who are concerned very much about our social problems and closely associated economic problems, problems of depopulation, drift, and so on. I believe that for the younger people especially good sound radio and television services have an even greater part to play in the outlying areas where the temptation is always to drift away to the places with the bright lights, amenities and facilities of all kinds for the enjoyment of leisure. Leisure itself can, in abundance, become a depopulator of areas where people are conscious of these services being provided elsewhere, for there is a temptation to emigrate to those better-served places.
One of the reasons why the B.B.C. has not felt fully able to work upon the provision of services in what are, or were, the most difficult areas is the fact that it is robbed of part of its revenue for reasons which are hard to justify any larger. I support the representations made by my hon. Friends about the B.B.C.'s cash. At the end of the day, it is the Treasury and the Government as a whole who are to blame rather than the B.B.C. I do not want the B.B.C. to have to bear the brunt of the criticism, because I know it wants to finish the job and provide complete sound and television coverage throughout the British Isles, including the outlying islands.
There has been a suggestion that the B.B.C. has not only generally shown neither fear nor favour but has been completely impartial in its services. That is true of the news service and of most of the comments on the news. But I am not quite so sure that at times the B.B.C. does not tend to watch and follow trends in policy and then assume that those trends represent policy or the best and only policy possible. It has been my observation in recent months—and I may be wrong, for it may be bias on my part—that in connection with discussion of the Common Market there has been a great deal more time devoted and opportunity given to the arguments for rather than to the argu

ments against. Perhaps I should like to see it a lot more the other way—I do not deny that.
I do not want to introduce a lengthy argument on this point. It is a highly topical and controversial subject. There is, however, just the danger from time to time of a subject of that kind being treated by the B.B.C., once the Government have announced their policy, as if that were the only possible policy that could be adopted. The B.B.C. at times tends to favour the Establishment and its case, and, indeed, the Government's case. That view of mine may or may not be correct, but it represents my feeling on the matter.
It is also possible sometimes to say things in Gaelic that one cannot say in English on the radio and get away with It. I expect that the same thing applies to Welsh. I could make quite a few comments in Gaelic, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and no doubt you would allow Gaelic quotations just as you allow Latin quotations, but I shall not take the opportunity. But I noticed a few weeks ago a recorded broadcast from Southern Rhodesia by the Duke of Montrose. He spoke in Gaelic and it was broadcast in the Scottish Gaelic service.
If ever there was an apology for apartheid and Sir Roy Welensky, a political broadcast by proxy, it was surely that one, but because it was in Gaelic the Duke got away with it. That sort of partiality and the permission to say in Gaelic what he would not be allowed to put across in English is a serious matter. He was obviously appealing to people in a particular part of the country in their own language, which was a more direct appeal than it would have been in English. It was a most biassed speech on a highly-controversial subject, and should be added to the Government's list of political broadcasts for this year. I ask the B.B.C. to watch that side of its service, because there is a tendency there to allow things to come across in the original language which would not dare to be put across in the adopted English.
Can the hon. Lady say whether, in connection with its general obligation under its Charter and the extension of the Charter, or under its experimental local services, the B.B.C. intends to do


anything to fulfil its obligations to the people of the Outer Islands like Barra and North Uist? I recognise that the B.B.C. has special difficulties in areas where there is no public supply of electricity, and there is no such supply in these areas. Has the B.B.C. any obligation to provide the means for a T.V. service under the Charter or not?
This is rather important to the people of areas who do not have a local supply of electricity which would enable them to have a television service. Does the B.B.C. have some obligation to do something about that and provide a supply which will make that service possible in those areas? I ask the hon. Lady to take this seriously. When there are areas which do not have services which have been taken for granted over other parts of the country for so many years, other parts where there are alternative ways of enjoying leisure, there grows up a general depression and people say that if they are not to have television or the other services, why should they not go to areas where those things are enjoyed for exactly the same fee they are asked to pay for the radio service in the islands.
I ask the hon. Lady to assure us on that, now that the B.B.C. is not to face us with the objection that it is not providing a service in those areas because of technical difficulties. For several years I have been faced with replies from the hon. Lady and her colleagues when I have been told that the B.B.C. would like to do this, but that all sorts of obstacles and difficulties of geography have stood in its way. Those very obstacles of geography, the hills and mountains of the north-west Highlands have been used for a long time, especially by the Americans and particularly by the American Army in the first place, not as obstacles but as a means of bouncing and relaying signals for television as well as sound. Why we should find ourselves hiding behind mountains instead of bouncing signals off them I do not know. I understand that that argument has now been abandoned, at least by the B.B.C. and possibly by the Post Office.
That leaves only one major obstacle and objection in the way, now that the mountains and other geographical diffi

culties are no longer the enemies but the friends of a signal. I understand that the B.B.C. is willing and anxious to provide a service and that all that seems to stand in the way is lack of an assurance that it will have a continuing supply of money for the job. I should like to get these things clear so that by the time we have the debate on the Pilkington report we will know exactly what difficulties and obstacles remain, or are said to remain, because I believe that the only remaining difficulties are financial.
When a few years ago it was intended to set up a full rocket range in the Island of South Uist, in the Outer Islands, the B.B.C. was approached and it was intended that as 6,000 personnel, troops and civilians, were to be sent to the Outer Islands, they should be given television. There was no argument about it and it was practically laid on. Then the whole project collapsed down to the soale of more or less an Army summer camp. A few hundred troops go out to fire a few obsolete Corporal rockets and the Government now see no justification for providing television in that area.
When it was proposed to bring 6,000 people into the area, everything was laid on to provide a television service, but when it was decided that these people would not come in, the 40,000 permanent residents were told that it was not worth while providing such a service, or that it could not be done for financial and other reasons. We have fallen several years behind because the area was not developed as a full-scale rocket range. Because the scale of the range was reduced, the prospects of the local people getting television have been reduced.
The most absurd feature of all in this situation is that in the Island of Lewis. for example; where the B.B.C. could not do the job, where the Postmaster-General and the Treasury could not find the money, and where mountains were regarded as obstacles, a small private company in the town of Stornoway has been able to provide piped television to a few hundred people. It has done so at little profit. It was passionately interested in television and experimented with it, and this enterprising firm has been able to do what the B.B.C., with all


the resource's of the British nation, was unable to do.
Even more absurd—and I think the hon. Lady will realise that the absurdity of this should drive us into providing services of this kind—is the fact that while we cannot get the television service which we were going to get if a rocket range had been set up in South Uist, and while a small local firm is able to provide a service which the B.B.C. is unable to provide, troops in St. Kilda enjoy an excellent service, and so do the people across the water in Londonderry and Northern Ireland.
No wonder that the people in the area are fed up about the absence of a service which is excellent in the rest of the country. The provision of a television service would help us to solve one of the most difficult social problems facing any community in this country, the problem of the drift of population, particularly of young people, from an area which feels neglected, and feels even more neglected when it is said that a second or third choice programme cannot be provided.
I think that the hon. Lady has sufficient imagination to realise how She would feel if she were living in that area and some other young lady sitting in her place were asked questions about colour television and alternative channels.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I want to introduce a note of dissention into this bout of mutual backslapping of the B.B.C., because I have a serious grievance against the Corporation. I have been in the House for just over ten years, and I have put forward this grievance on scores of occasions. Successive Postmasters-General have given me similar replies.
I am getting a bit "fed up" with the B.B.C., and I am almost driven to the point of supporting local independent sound broadcasting. I warn the hon. Lady that if the Pilkington Committee recommends independent local sound broadcasting I will support it. We may then get a better deal than we have had from the B.B.C.
I come from the north-east of England. It is the only region of the country which has to share a local pro

gramme with another region. Ever since the war my region has had to share a programme with Northern Ireland, which is 200 miles from us. We have no community of interest with Northern Ireland. We cannot understand what they are talking about. Their songs are unintelligible to us. We do not understand their plays. We do not understand their language. There is a great deal more community of interest between the north-west of England and Ireland than between the north-east and Ireland.
We are completely separated, even more so since the Government started closing the railways over the Pennines. There is no railway system between Carlisle, Newcastle and Skipton. The Pennine Chain is not crossed by any railway. We are completely cut off from this other part of England. Much more are we cut off from Northern Ireland. Every other region in Britain has its own regional programme, and in this country the regions have a very strong local lore and tradition, which is put across on the regional programmes. In the case of the north-east of England alone is the regional programme halved. We have to share it with Northern Ireland. After all these years it is high time that some other area took a spell at sharing with Northern Ireland. I suggest that Scotland might share. That would be a very good combination. The Irish would not understand Gaelic and the Scots would not understand Irish. Perhaps Wales would be a good choice—or even the pampered south-east of England.
I know the technical argument about the "mush" area, with stations broadcasting on the same wavelength, and that in our case the "mush" area conveniently falls in the middle of the Irish Sea, but I have gone into the matter and I am told that there are other regions which could share, and where the "mush" area would still fall in the sea and not on the land, where it causes confusion. I ask the hon. Lady to look into the matter again. I hope that she is listening to me, because this is not only my argument; it is the argument of 2 million people who live in the north-east of England.
The answer we always get is, "Buy a VHF set." People keep their radio


receivers for many years. I should think the average is about ten or twelve years, especially in the case of old people. Some of them have had their sets for donkey's years. Some are still using battery sets. I have a set which I made when I was 16 years of age and it still works well. People just cannot afford to renew their sets. A Postmaster-General once told me that when we buy a television set we should get one which has VHF combined. People sometimes do that. They dispose of their radio set and then realise that they can get only the three local stations on VHF. They cannot get Radio Luxembourg, and if they have children this is a tremendous disadvantage.
This is a very great grievance in the north-east of England. It has a very important and highly productive population, with over 2 million people, and they are getting an extremely raw deal from the B.B.C. I warn the hon. Lady that if the Pilkington Committee recommends independent local sound broadcasting I shall support that recommendation, unless the B.B.C. splits our wavelength from that of Northern Ireland beforehand.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Before my hon. Friend replies, I want to ask her a question about colour television. Will she be quite sure that before vast amounts of money and resources are devoted to the production of any short of public colour television service some sort of worth-while picture can be produced? I have recently been in the United States of America, where they have colour television, and where the colours are so garish and usually so out of focus that it is not worth while having them at all. Before we spend money on colour television, and anything is put before the public, could another demonstration be provided for hon. Members so that we may see what is in store for us?

11.13 p.m.

Miss Pike: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to some of the points which have been made tonight. Before doing so, I must once again express the Postmaster-General's sincere regrets that he has not been able to be in the House this evening to listen

to this most interesting debate. He is unfortunate in not being able to be in two places at once. He is still engaged in very important work at this moment.
But I have gained where my right hon. Friend has lost. I have had the opportunity of listening throughout the debate and I have enjoyed hearing the views of hon. Members. I have sat here envying them the freedom they have to express themselves. Hon. Members sometimes feel that they are sitting on the fence in this pre-Pilkington period; I feel as though I am in a straitjacket. It would be unwise, until the Committee has reported, for me to express categorical opinions about matters of such fundamental importance to our social conditions.
I think that all hon. Members have recognised that the views which they have put forward are their own views and thinking at this time, and that when we get the Pilkington report we may all have deeper and second thoughts. Before we make any innovations we should think hard and debate long on the problems which will confront us. It is easy to over-simplify some of the problems. So many of these things are interlocking and a decision made over one matter may have a fundamental effect on another. To that extent, the decision over the whole is prejudiced. That is very much the position at the present time.
I do not wish to weary or delay the House by going through all the reasons why I cannot answer some of the points which have been raised by hon. Members. The question of colour television was referred to by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). I would remind him that my right hon. Friend has accepted the advice of the technical committee that we must have a decision on line definition before going into the very heavy capital investment that we shall need in connection with colour television. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) that some of the colour television experiments which I have seen have been first-class. I think that when we get it in this country we shall lead the world.
Although we may seem to be taking a long time in making decisions there


is sometimes a virtue in not being too soon in the field, but rather of making certain that what we have is of real value. We should not only set a standard for ourselves in the last half of this century, which is what we shall do, but also set a standard for other people throughout the world.
Having said that, it is easy to give the impression that nothing is being done in the television field as a whole. Of course, a great deal is happening at present. Before going on to that perhaps I should say something about the more technical questions which have been raised. I am sure that the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) would not expect me to go fully into all the technicalities of his problem. I have a great affection for the Western Isles and I wish that the problem were as easy of solution as the hon. Member made it sound. It is perhaps not quite so difficult to get to certain places and supply piped television, but it is not easy to get sound or television signals to other places. But we hope that with the developments which are coming along we shall be able to do it. It is not just money which is inhibiting us at present.
I should like to reassure the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) that we are very well aware of his problem. He knows that VHF is the answer. I appreciate, of course, that that means buying a VHF set and on that I recognise his argument.
Several hon. Members have referred to the external services. I know that all hon. Members would wish to maintain the effect of these services and so do the Government. We recognise that external broadcasting is of great importance, but it is only one of the ways in which news and information about Britain can be presented to other countries. There may be especially well developed Press facilities in other countries and the radio and television services may be equally or more effective.
Communist countries transmit to the United Kingdom about 100 hours a week. We do not mind them wasting their money in this way. I think that we should be foolish to waste our own by broadcasting to countries where our efforts would be similarly ineffective. It is not our intention to try to match the

quantity of other countries' external broadcasting.
In prescribing the hours and languages in which the B.B.C. broadcasts, Her Majesty's Government have ensured a large broadcasting effort to those areas where it will have maximum effect. This effect has for some time been limited by the difficulties of transmitting over great distances and by increased interference from other broadcasts. The additional transmitters which we have now approved will ensure that to most major audiences overseas the B.B.C.'s broadcasts will be at least as easy to listen to as those of our adversaries.
This is by far the most urgent improvement needed in our external broadcasting. It will cost over £400,000 a year to operate, apart from capital costs. Although we may have to meet some of this extra running cost by reducing or stopping a few of the less valuable existing operations, we intend the total result to be a substantial improvement in our external broadcasting and its greater concentration on the areas of the world in which it is likely to have the greatest effect.
Meanwhile, the programme for replacing and modernising the B.B.C.'s present equipment has been going ahead for some time and about £½ million has been spent up to date. Last year, the B.B.C. was authorised to order a further six replacement transmitters together with new aerials and associated equipment at a total cost of about £1 million. It has been argued that the B.B.C. should have more funds for external broadcasting. We recognise this problem. I do not think any of us would be satisfied that we could not do more, but we are fully cognisant of its tremendous importance. It would be easy to give the impression that nothing has been done, but this is far from being the case.
I wish to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), but before doing so I must not forget to remark on how much we have enjoyed the B.B.C. Handbook in its new format this year. It was fortunate for all of us that it arrived on our desks today and gave us an opportunity of seeing in attractive form the tremendous work the B.B.C. is doing. Of course, the B.B.C. is proud of claiming that it has always been the pioneers


and it is quite right to take pride in this. Perhaps the development which is of the greatest interest to the greatest number is the one which I have already mentioned, namely, improvement and extension of both television and VHF sound coverage by means of the programme of satellite stations.
Equipment has been specially designed by B.B.C. engineers for these stations. The most important piece of equipment is known as a "translator" which picks up the vision and sound signals from an existing station and re-radiates them on another channel. This equipment, I understand, is very simple and reliable and the stations will operate without staff in attendance, so they are economic as well.
We are often asked why the B.B.C. cannot press on even more quickly with this programme, designed as it is to bring sound and television to small scattered communities remote from the main centres of population as well as improving reception in places throughout the country where for one reason or another reception is bad. There are other parts of the country where reception is difficult, but not quite so difficult as in the Western Isles. The B.B.C. attaches the highest importance to its programme. So does my right hon. Friend and, I am sure, many hon. Members.
We are all of us extremely conscious of the need to bring the benefits of radio and television to the more remote and rural parts of the United Kingdom where the other amenities which the city dweller takes for granted do not exist. The B.B.C. scheme is quite a big one. So far, it provides for no fewer than 27 television stations and 21 three-programme VHF sound stations, but the planning of these stations is a difficult and complicated job. Since they have to work within the Band 1 frequencies allotted for B.B.C. use, they have to be of very restricted power so as not to set up mutual interference with other existing stations using the same frequencies and it follows that if the maximum benefit is to be gained for them their siting becomes a matter which calls for very careful calculation. I do not need to mention the other difficulties in regard to acquisition of land, plan

ning permission, and so on, which invariably arise when a mast has to be erected in the middle of the countryside.
The B.B.C. has come up against a few unavoidable and unexpected delays because of difficulty in acquiring suitable sites. Five of these stations are already working—at Sheffield, Hastings, Londonderry, Llandrindod Wells and in the Channel Islands. The Corporation hopes to open by the spring the stations at Redruth in Cornwall, mentioned by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), Oxford, Llanddona and Manningtree. The Corporation hopes that nearly all the 48 stations will be on the air by the end of 1963.
Even now, before these stations open, the B.B.C. has achieved a degree of penetration higher than anywhere else in the world, including the U.S.A. Nevertheless, the Corporation is not content with this. It has put to my right hon. Friend its proposals for Stage III of its scheme, and even this does not represent its last word.
It is always fascinating to observe how we proceed with the conventional developments, but how the technical developments seem to proceed on two fronts. I have told the House, because I thought it was important, something of the Corporation's plans to extend its service through satellite stations to as many people as possible. Meantime, this country will be making its contribution in developing the technique of space satellite communication.

Mr. Short: Have the Government any plan to go to the international conference which allocates medium wavelengths and ask for another wavelength for this country? We have always been a wavelength short.

Miss Pike: I cannot accept that this country is short. I freely admit that I am not very well versed in the great technicalities of wavelengths, and so on, but I believe that we have and can have the best coverage possible.
I want to continue to say something about satellite communications, which can, we hope, be used ultimately for telephone communication and for the relay of television. Experiments may be taking place this year. Perhaps the day


is not too far ahead when we shall have regular television programmes transmitted across the Atlantic via sky satellites and we shall be brought virtually as close to the new world as we are to the old world via the Eurovision link which we enjoy now.
Hon. Members have referred to American television. I started by saying that I believe that this country could set a standard in the world. I believe that when we are bouncing television programmes across the Atlantic on satellites we shall perhaps be doing something to help them with their television programmes.
I conclude by saying that all of us who have taken part in the debate tonight would wish to pay tribute to the work done by the B.B.C. We recognise that we have a long way to go and we all look forward to the debates on the future of radio and television. The B.B.C. has done a remarkably good job in its forty years of life. We all wish it well. I am sure that the House will wish to support the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Licence and Agreement, dated 6th November 1961, between Her Majesty's Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — CHAROLLAIS CATTLE (LEPTOSPIROSIS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

11.29 p.m.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: This Adjournment debate, which follows an important debate on the British Broadcasting Corporation, is on the danger of leptospirosis in Charollais cattle that has been caused by the Government's agreement to allow the Milk Marketing Board to import Charollais bulls from France for use on dairy cows in its artificial insemination centres.
When, about six years ago, I made my maiden speech, I was lucky enough to be very much helped by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I hope that his answers to my queries will help me tonight. Perhaps I might be so

bold as to ask for the usual kindness and courtesy of the House to one who has not made a speech for over four years because of being in a somewhat reserved occupation.
I am glad that my hon. Friend is to answer in this debate, because he has an unparalleled practical knowledge of farming and livestock matters generally. Like myself and others, he is concerned with improving our cattle industry. It is, however, with my right hon. Friend the Minister and his predecessor that I have occasionally had arguments on this present matter. I am interested in it, not only as a small breeder of Welsh black cattle, but also because my constituency of Hereford has given its name to one of the country's most famous breeds of cattle.
I am also interested because I have recently been made chairman of the Livestock Export Group, a non-profit-making organisation which has as its object the increase of our export of all types of livestock. We believe that those exports, which are already growing. could very well reach a value of £5 million a year. At a time when the country needs every pound's worth of exports, the export of cattle is very important.
If we are to export our cattle, we must continue to keep our reputation as a clean livestock area. To maintain that reputation, the Ministry of Agriculture has for some time insisted on a slaughter policy for foot-and-mouth disease, and I well remember my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary arguing about a year ago, very rightly and cogently, in favour of that policy as a means of convincing the rest of the world that we treat that disease very seriously.
The point about the foot-and-mouth slaughter policy is that it is applied not only to animals actually suffering from the disease, but to the rest of the animals in the herd. I asked the Minister the other day why it was that when leptospirosis was discovered amongst Charollais cattle already brought to this country, only those animals suffering from it were slaughtered, and not all of them. I admit, of course, that they were all under the surveillance of the Ministry. My policy was altogether too bold and too bloody and, quite frankly,


I was not surprised when my right hon. Friend said that it was not possible to adopt it.
After the Terrington Committee had advised the Ministry that it might send its vets to France, a batch of Charollais bulls was brought back here. Some were discarded before coming across the Channel because they showed signs of leptospirosis, and others were discarded and killed for the same reason after their arrival. The remainder, however, were distributed to the A.I. centres last Friday conveniently before this debate took place.
I may be of a somewhat suspicious nature, but this is a matter of some importance to the livestock industry, and in all the months of public discussion we have not once had the chance to debate it in this House. I must say that I think that it is an example of bad public relations. It would have been much better if the Ministry had waited until not only myself, but, perhaps, other hon. Members, had had a chance of addressing the House before actually sending these cattle to the stations.
What benefit will Britain get, or our livestock industry receive, from the importation of Charollais cattle? The Minister must know the answer if he is prepared to take such risks. Are the benefits so much greater than the risks that the experiment could not have been carried out in France? Was it a question of time or cost that the experiment with these bulls was not carried out in that country? Surely, if properly organised, the experiment would not have taken any longer in France than it would in England? I feel that those interested in this matter—not only the Milk Marketing Board, but private individuals as well—might have been able to find the money for the experiment and it would not have cost the Ministry a penny.
Why were these people and the Milk Marketing Board so keen to try this experiment on our dairy breeds and produce these cross calves? What profit can there be in that? The King Ranch, with nigh on 1 million acres in Texas, producing meat beef for the Chicago market, tried the experiment and chucked it. Why do the Government think that the Charollais experiment

will work here? Is it considered that the carcase produced will be suitable to our butchers, remembering that the type of butchery in Britain differs from that of France?
Charollais cattle have three physical drawbacks: first, they are slow in maturing; secondly, they are large; and, thirdly, the quality of meat is poor. In France, as many hon. Members will know, Charollais cattle are killed for veal at twelve months compared with our beef cattle which are killed at six or nine months. At three-and-a-half years the Charollais is mature for beef while most of our breeds mature at under two-and-a-half years. This slow maturing is a drawback.
Size enters into this, and this factor worries me. It is clear that the animals for which Charollais are to be used are our Ayrshire cows. I would remind the House that the Charollais is big in the head and shoulder and anyone with experience of the difficulties of calving—in the dark or daylight—does not want to see those difficulties made greater. I have visions of unnecessary cruelty being caused by using large, heavy animals with heavy characteristics with animals that are very small behind.
Why cannot the Charollais be used on Friesian cows? The Friesian is big and Friesian cattle have already proved themselves to be dual purpose cattle. There cannot be any point in using Charollais cattle and, in any case, they are much quicker in maturing. The greatest drawback is the possibility and danger of disease. I am not a "vet", but I am told that leptospirosis can remain in the urine of cattle for up to twelve months. I therefore stress the importance of keeping Britain disease free both for our livestock and our plants.
This is one of the things that gives us the reputation we have in the world. I implicitly trust our agricultural veterinary surgeons. They have done a great job for our livestock industry and have, therefore, a great responsibility to watch this matter to avoid any possible chance of disease.
Here, then, is something which the Minister should consider. What is his future policy about these cattle? What is his plan? "Planning" has become


a quite respectable word lately, so long as it is used with a small "p". With a large "P" it sometimes gets hon. Gentlemen into trouble. What is the Minister's objective in allowing this importation? Are these the only bulls which will be imported? Does he intend to allow Charollais females in if they are asked for by other people? It is things of that kind that we want to know.
What trials are to take place to compare Charollais results with our home beef breeds? I understand that there are to be trials. May we be told where they are to be held and who is to be in charge of them? We can be assured that the French have sent us their best bulls. The price paid was fairly high. I know that some valuable beef sire performance tests have been carried out by B.O.C.M. at Selby, in Yorkshire, using Aberdeen Angus, beef Shorthorn and Devon bulls. I ask that due regard be paid to the claims of all our home beef breeds to be fairly represented in these tests. There is an idea that somebody might choose a sire representative of a home beef breed which is not up to standard, and if that should happen it would not be particularly fair to those who support and keep these cattle. I do not think that I am asking too much.
In a short time I have covered a fairly wide field but, I think, with justification. Many people are affected, and there are, indeed, many sides to the problem. The Minister owes it to the cattle industry to explain his intentions and future policy in regard to Charollais cattle. To sum up, I will put my questions in tabular form.
First, why did my hon. Friend's Department agree to import these Charollais cattle, and what benefit does his Department think they can bring to this country? Second, now that the stable door is shut, so to speak, will he keep a careful watch on the Charollais bulls now in artificial insemination centres in order to make quite certain that those who rely on us to export cattle to them may have complete and utter trust in our handling of the situation? Third, will the Minister see that in comparative tests on dairy cows our own beef breeds get a chance to try their best bulls in competition? Fourth, will the Minister take particular note of

calving difficulties which may arise with the smaller breeds and make any recommendations required to avoid unnecessary cruelty? Finally, does he intend to allow further imports of Charollais bulls or cows, and, if so, what safeguards will he take?
There is much at stake, and I make no apology for raising the matter on the Adjournment of the House tonight.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I apologise for intervening, but I think that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) must be put right on various statements he has made which do not hold water at all.
First, the Charollais has not a very large head. It has a small head. It has big shoulders, but it has a small head. Next, the French did not send us their best bulls. I think that we were a little parsimonious in our price. I was over there at the time and the French made it quite clear that we were buying nothing like their best.
Next, the French kill the Charollais cattle for veal at three to four months, whereas ours are killed at six to eight months. I can show the hon. Member a whole bunch of letters from ranches in America and Canada where the experience is completely different from the experience he referred to. As for the question of testing in France, how can one test our cattle in France in a totally different climate? There was no sign of leptospirosis or disease in any of the bulls chosen in France to be sent to this country. So on all these facts, I am sorry to say, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. He can check them if he likes.
However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's view of the veterinary service. I can assure him and his friends in the conservative breed societies in this country that there is no danger. I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will also reassure him about that. I have had consultations with the Chief Veterinary Officer in Canada, and he has so much faith in our service that all the animals that go through Canada to the United States, which is our main buyer, will be allowed to go through easily. I cannot understand why our breed societies are so scared.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to the hon. Member for answering my points. But when do he and his friends intend to apply to import Charollais cows?

Mr. Mackie: As soon as we are allowed to.
Now I come to the most important point. I do not know where or when the hon. Gentleman got his figure of £5 million for exports. For the last six to eight years the average has been slightly over £600,000. I do not know how he will get to the bigger figure. I use a Front Bench expression in saying that it is "a row of beans" compared to the advantage we shall get if we reach the figures got by other countries in conversion rates and weight for age gains in our own beef production.
No one knows these things until we try. Professor Cooper, one of our foremost authorities, has given us figures of 3·05 lb. gain per day and 1½ cwts. heavier in six months than Herefords. An average of 15 to 17 per cent. less feed is used in conversion rates, and 2·75 lb. per day increase. I could go on quoting figures like that in reply to the hon. Gentleman's figures. If we consider our beef production, then even £5 million worth of exports would be that "row of beans" compared to the effect on our industry if this matter were handled right. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture would not then have to come to us for Supplementary Estimates. It is worth trying. The hon. Gentleman should look closely at the facts before he criticises something which will do this country so much good.

11.47 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I think that the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) has answered many of the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) and has shown that his fears are groundless. Nevertheless, we should be grateful to my hon. Friend for choosing this subject for his second maiden speech, because it has aroused a great deal of interest in the country over a certain length of time. Everyone does not think the same thing about it, and some have felt unduly apprehensive, particularly about the question of exports.
I am glad to say that the results of the Hereford sales today show, however fearful some hon. Members may have been about the possible effect on our sales of cattle for export, that there does not seem to have been any effect on these sales. I hope to show my hon. Friend that the other fears, which I am sure he does not show even though he has spoken of them, are groundless.

Mr. John Brewis: Surely the danger on the export market is that a ban will be put on exports of all British livestock because of the Charollais? What happens at Hereford hardly affects that.

Mr. Vane: I should have thought that what happened today was relevant and that the sort of fearful attitude that some people in this country have shown from time to time is not really doing a service to our livestock in the markets of the world.
The minutes left to me are not numerous, but I will do my best to answer the points which have been raised. First, as to the background, the importation of these Charollais bulls was very carefully examined by an expert Committee set up in 1959 under the chairmanship of the late Lord Terrington and it received and took into account the views of all sections of the cattle industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland announced their acceptance, in principle, of the Report of the Committee and decided to proceed with an importation. It is quite wrong to suppose that the views of breeders of pedigree cattle were not considered during this stage. They emphasised their fears that the disease risks associated with the importation would imperil our export trade.
Against this, we have to bear in mind that we have relied on and profited to a large extent in the past from the importation of livestock from overseas—British Friesian cows, for example, and, in recent months, the Red Poll Society has imported Danish Red cattle with the object of improving the breed. Polled Devons were recently brought in and it is not so long ago that polled Herefords were imported from Canada for the same reason. This is happening all the time under proper control and it may


be interesting to some hon. Members to note that in the past even the Charollais has benefited from the infusions of beef Shorthorn strains. This is a two-way traffic and has been going on for a long time. We have all benefited from it.
My right hon. Friend felt that the recommendations of the Terrington Committee were sound and that experiments with Charollais as crossing bulls might prove of benefit to the farmers of this country. I thought that that was widely known to be the purpose of the importation. It is essential that, however high the reputation of our stock, we should not overlook the possibility of improvements brought in from elsewhere, and we must do that if we are to continue to remain in the van of progress.
The Terrington Committee recommended that there should be the importation of Charollais for the purpose of testing their usefulness as crossing bulls for the production of beef from the dairy herd, and suggested that they should be put to fairly extensive experimental use in commercial herds whose owners were willing to try them.
I want now to say something about the very important animal health aspect. Having satisfied ourselves of the possible advantages of an experimental importation, the next consideration was to ensure that there would be no adverse effects on the high standard of our animal health. We had to be sure that we were not likely to introduce a disease which would be a hazard to British livestock. Clearly, no matter how carefully imports are regulated, there must always be some element of risk associated with the importation of live animals—or, even for that matter, human beings—but this can be reduced to negligible proportions.
It was found possible, with strict veterinary precautions, to counter every foreseeable risk in the Charollais importation and, after a close study of the incidence of animal diseases known to exist in France, the Ministry's veterinary officers were able to lay down a number of veterinary requirements, full details of which have been published in HANSARD.
Before the bulls were purchased, tests for tuberculosis, brucellosis and leptospirosis were carried out by the French veterinary service, who also certi

fied that leptospirosis had not been diagnosed during the previous twelve months in any of the herds from which the animals came. There is an international standard for testing for leptospirosis and it is normal for the exporting country to carry out such veterinary tests and to give appropriate certificates.
On completion of the 28-day quarantine period at Brest, the French veterinary service also certified that the animals showed no clinical signs of any contagious, infectious or parasitic disease affecting cattle. On arrival at our quarantine station in London, the animals were subjected to a variety of tests, including tests for four different types of leptospirosis. Unfortunately, three of the bulls failed to pass the test for one variety of leptospirosis, a type which has never been recorded in this country and which is known to be dangerous to the health of cattle. Throughout the whole period of quarantine, all the necessary and usual precautions were observed to make sure that the infection was not taken outside the station. The carcases of the slaughtered animals were burned under veterinary supervision and great care was taken in disposing of the manure.
My hon. Friend referred to foot-and-mouth disease. This is not a comparable example. The slaughter of the reacting bulls removed the known source of infection, but it was necessary to retain the remainder in quarantine and subject them to a further series of tests until we were satisfied that the disease had not been transmitted to them. None of the remaining cattle reacted to these tests, and it was perfectly correct that they should then be released for the purposes for which they had been imported. Very strict tests were carried out, and my right hon Friend was right to release the animals from quarantine last Friday.
My hon. Friend mentioned possible calving difficulties. These were among the matters which the Terrington Committee examined most carefully. The Committee considered that, although the evidence it received was not conclusive, the amount of calving difficulty likely to be encountered by the use of reasonably well selected Charollais bulls on cows or heifers was not likely to be so excessive that it might not be readily offset by


other advantages, and, certainly, it was not a factor which would lead one to dismiss the idea of these experiments. The Committee's conclusion was that there was no serious degree of risk, but, of course, we cannot be certain until further trials have been conducted in this country.
My hon. Friend asked for information about these trials. They are to be coordinated by a working group under the chairmanship of the Ministry's Chief Scientific Adviser. All sides of the cattle industry are represented on this group, as well as officers of the National Agricultural Advisory Service, and the aim is to secure the widest possible range of controlled comparisons between the Charollais and British beef breeds for crossing with dairy breeds. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the tests carried out in France could not be of the same value as the range of tests to be carried out in this country.
These trials are being organised in three parts. Two Ministry experimental husbandry farms and three other centres which possess exceptional individual feeding facilities will compare the Charollais with Herefords in crosses on Friesians and Ayrshires, and also with pure Friesians for liveweight gain and efficiency of conversion and on assessment of the carcases. There is to be a second group of trials at 40 centres which are able to maintain accurate records, but do not have the same individual feeding facilities. The Charollais there will be compared with 13 different crosses of British beef breeds or dairy breeds, and also with pure Friesians.
The Milk Marketing Board will be responsible for the other range of tests, farmers who participate in these tests will be asked to record information on such matters as calving difficulties and on age and weight at slaughter. There is to be a wide range of tests, and in these last tests farmers will rear the crosses according to their own ideas and resources. Other tests are planned under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture and Fishery for Scotland.
I have tried, in a short time, to answer as many questions as possible. I hope that my hon. Friend now sees that there is a definite purpose in these trials. As to what the results will be, we shall have to see, but there were good grounds for allowing the importation. There have been certain detractors of this experiment. If it is not a success, we shall have lost nothing. If it is a success, we may all have gained, and I recommend to my hon. Friend something that St. Paul wrote in a letter in another context, but which is applicable here. He said:
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
I am sure that it was in that spirit that the Terrington Committee made its recommendations, and it is in that spirit that we are carrying out these experiments.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.